C's Misses?

[Approaching Infinity]

Something to keep in mind in relation to the original post:

I do not want someone telling me the answer. What's the point? If you discover something by your own effort - you learn something, you grow. If instead you are being told the answers, you get lazy and rotten. C's are just hinting (sometimes giving misleading hints, on purpose, to test our discerning abilities), leaving the pleasure of the discovery for us. And that is how all great teachers work. They would never do your homework. Your homework is for you to do!

C's are "us in the future". How did they get their wisdom? Through hard work. Through the hard work of "us in the now". How else?

As they say: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And you think there is one, then you are the lunch.

 

[Zzartemis]

It is clear that Texas, Florida, and a handful of other US states are the only relatively free places on the ENTIRE planet.

If someone asked me where I would like to be at the moment - I'd name any of those places in the US, without hesitation.

Others here have responded to different points you've made; I'll take the part highlighted above.

Watching politics for many years, I've learned that the devil is in the details.

This is something I mentioned to my son, weeks ago. Ppl are telling you to move or they are moving to a red state...But what if the Governor changes? What if it's a set up to lure ppl to?....and I did use Florida as an example...Then I found the following:



BILL SB 2006 was signed and approved by Florida Governor Ron Desantis back in May 3, 2021.

While the bill was advertised and sold as a 'landmark deal' banning jab passes and 'government overreach' it also gave the government the right to remove, quarantine and jab anyone who poses a 'threat' to the public.

This is a mirrored version of New York's Assembly Bill A416 which could be voted on as the next legislative session begins tomorrow January 5, 2022.

AN OBSERVATION Florida saw the most growth in population this past year, it would make sense as to why they are overcrowding that area for their sick plans. Advertising it is a "free state" but in fact has the NWO agenda hidden in plain sight, all under the guise of freedom... Source Senate Bill 2006 (2021) - The Florida Senate BILL SB 2006 PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/PDF
*edited for spacing

 

[Alejo]

Is this the session you were referring to? Because I do believe that the question was not about the US but about Russia.

Q: (Keit) So far Russia, despite various restrictions, has lower levels of corona craziness in comparison to other countries. Should we expect Russia to catch up also because of low vaccination rates?

(L) Are you asking if Russia is going to have more coronavirus cases because they're not...

(Keit) More corona craziness.

(L) Oh, so are they gonna become more like Western countries because they've been slack so far...

A: No.

Q: (Keit) Will mandatory vaccination bill pass?

A: Yes

Q: (Keit) And will there be protests?

A: Yes

And I wouldn't be too sure that the vaccine mandate in the US is completely out of the question, as planned by the Biden Administration. All the supreme court declared was that OSHA had no jurisdiction to mandate workers in the US to vaccinate, but it could still be implemented by so many other means.

And, I don't think it actually matters that much at this stage, he announced a mandate in November, and in January it was ruled against by the supremer court, yet.... that was enough to have millions of people vaccinated in the interim, whether the mandate was legal or not was never the question, and that's all the supremer court declared, the mandate did become real enough to have corporations mandate vaccinations.

Let's not forget all that happened with the airlines, none of them waited for it passing or the outcome of the lawsuits, they ran with it. So did the pentagon, and cities and states. And at this stage, while it does feel like a nice breather as it provides a legal recourse for workers, in practice I actually have not seen it make a difference where I live.

Where I live in the US there's no mandate for any restrictions in the entire state, yet everyone's wearing a mask and lining up for tests and boosters. The Supreme Court shutting down the mandate made no difference, people have been so responsive that a mandate isn't needed anymore, all they have to do is publish a few statistics and figures about hospitals and cases and people jump into the adequate action.

Now, of course this is how things look to me at the moment, I could always be wrong.

 

[brandon]

Love that quote of Ark's that Approaching Infinity posted above..

I always liked thinking about the answer the C's gave in one session years ago when asked to estimate their own accuracy so far.. I can't find it now, but they said 67% or something around that IIRC (not sure of the exact number). What if that answer itself was 67% accurate? Then it'd be about 45%.... but if that was 45% accurate it'd be just over 20%... but if that one was about 20% accurate......... oh no!

What an amazing experiment :)

 

[Ina]

@othree,
It is difficult to discern what is true and what’s not in terms of giving a binary value to interpretations of events. Truth values as defining snapshots of reality, when allocated from the future, become history, and history can be wrong, as we can be wrong in assuming Cs being our collective future selves as opposed to Laura’s future selves and vice versa. Perhaps the failed predictions are true predictions in the Cs history?
By history I mean the doccumentation of consumed processes not a timeline of events.
So for me it is interesting how or rather what did the Cs do to change from the 3d allthe way to the 6d, and indeed what are they doing at the moment when they are not communicating with ‘us’.
Personally, I am not looking for ‘predictions’ in the Cs communications. I am interested in any piece of information that might help me to understand them better, thus creating a better environment to understand one of the many paths to change, transition and survival to higher densities.

 

[Vinícius]

Love that quote of Ark's that Approaching Infinity posted above..

I always liked thinking about the answer the C's gave in one session years ago when asked to estimate their own accuracy so far.. I can't find it now, but they said 67% or something around that IIRC (not sure of the exact number). What if that answer itself was 67% accurate? Then it'd be about 45%.... but if that was 45% accurate it'd be just over 20%... but if that one was about 20% accurate......... oh no!

What an amazing experiment :)

keeping in mind that the "not accurate" part can be more because of semantics(and not necessarily wrong)

 

[othree]

With regards to:



Did you read the C's later comments about why the information about Jesus was wrong? Have you read Laura's book? Could you see why a 'miss' may have been the best option considering what was born of it?

I ask because there's clearly a lot more to the Jesus/Caesar question but you seem to be focused on whether it was a hit or a miss, and that seems to miss the point entirely.

Yes, I did read their explanation. They said that Laura or whoever posed the question at that time was too entrenched in their believes and so would have rejected the truth, or something to the effect.

Which makes the C's answer even more egregious and even more clear that it's good to remain skeptical about the channel. It would have been less egregious if the C's had said that it was because the channel was corrupted because of some of the participants or some other disturbances, but they basically admitted that they consciously lie. Of course it was for "our own good", or the "good" of the participants, but it was still a DELIBERATE lie.

I don't care WHY the information that came through was wrong, point is it was wrong. THEY ADMITTED IT. Which shows: This is not a perfect channel. Just like with any other channel or information or book or "expert" or website or research or whatever source. There is no 100% correct information anywhere. Never was, never will be. The C's themselves said as much when they rated the purity or correctness of their channel at something above 70% (forgot the exact number, but it was something like 74 or 76%). I wrote my post to remind myself about this.

But also: I believe that the first step to improve the channel is to become aware and admit that it's not a perfect channel and that they make mistakes.

The past blunders were often explained away by the strong biases of the participants.

It seems that this possibility of corruption due to bias has been excluded in the recent sessions. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. But if it has, then this would mean that the participants assume they figured out most of the "kinks". Maybe exactly that type of assumption makes the channel vulnerable for further corruption ...

 

[othree]

It's likely there are misses, the C's have said themselves that the information can be skewed by the participants in attendance and a number of other variables, including the fact that the future is open.

Moreover, isn't that why there's a C's 'hit list'? To highlight and give credit to those statements that were prophetic?

But this should logically include also a "miss list", if one was honest about wanting to research the C phenomena as objectively as possible. Just looking at their "hit list" without their blunders, looks like wishful thinking to me, like looking for confirmation of one's own believes. I'd like to strive to see things as realistically as possible, not as I want them to be ... and I would want the channel to be always correct and perfect, but it's not. I realize that I often forget that.

That said, it might help if you provide the quotes for those 'misses' which you're referring to. Because, going off what you've written, it seems to me that there may be some issues with your subjective interpretation. We're all susceptible to it, actually, that's why networking about it is best.


Example:



For now they may be banned in some places, but it's far from over.

Here's one reference that i found of the C's regarding mandates:



One could say that the more effective protests, in some places, did, at least temporarily, reverse mandates (i'm thinking of the walk outs by certain companies in the US that led to them being dropped).

I think you're mixing things up here.

I mentioned anti-vaccine passport mandates in a few US states. So, a number of US states have prohibited the use of vaccine passports. I am not aware that there were protests for the abolishment of such prohibitions?

The C's quote was pertaining to demonstrations against the implementation of vaccine passport laws. So, it seems your quote is misplaced here.

However, is it so cut and dry? As of December 6 in New York (as per the quote above), according to the Independent newspaper:



And just the other week in NYC a child & mother was thrown out of a restaurant by the police for not having a vaccine card.

See, that I specifically mentioned certain US states, not the US as a whole.

As you say, we will see.

To me it seems that if societies pretty much everywhere are on a ponerological cycle, then China seems to be in the early stages. Why is it locking down three cities? I can't say for sure. But it's also doing a lot that can be considered positive: thwarting the destruction wrought by the West; developing the infrastructure of other nations; lifting its own people out of poverty; promoting certain aspects of culture and life that we might consider to be positive. Note that few if any countries/governments in the West are doing this. And so the idea that Asia may be less totalitarian seems probable.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts.

You might want to check out this thread where prediction and interpretation are discussed in detail: How much of what the Cs say is 'symbolic'?

Yes, if the answer turns out to be wrong, it was because of "symbolism" or bias of the participants, or because the future is open, or because there is no time, or some other explanation. And it may be that those explanations are correct. But, when it comes to determine the purity of the channel, the reason for the corruption is irrelevant. First, it's important to concede: it's not a perfect channel. We know this. But when it's not, it's also good to determine what constitutes a wrong answer. Is there a wrong answer by the C's? Or are they all just interpreted incorrectly?

 

[othree]

@othree, you're not becoming impatient, are you? If or rather when the dollar crashes there will be ample opportunity for turmoil in the US with the supply chains breaking off.

Good point. I do understand the the Corona crisis was just the first "salvo".
That's why I pointed out that the situation may change drastically in the future, see my comments about FEMA camps and space based weapons.

There are indeed a handful of red states which are defending their freedoms but the Supreme Court had to take action because a vaccine mandate was about to be implemented. Will that prevent blue states from implementing such a mandate on their own?

The way things look some blue states in the US are in lockstep with European countries when it comes to the implementation of totalitarianism.

That's why I singled out only those states which do not follow that trajectory.

Within the EU so far only Italy introduced a partial vaccination mandate for health care jobs and people over fifty but it can be avoided by paying a fine of € 100.

I think you missed the news from Greece, Austria, Germany, and the news about plans for a EU wide vaccine mandate.

While I agree that in many parts of Europe the rhetoric and measures are becoming more totalitarian, predicting an -ism is still premature.

 

[othree]

I'm a new cat here but I wonder what's your motivation with this post othree...

I think I spelled it out pretty clearly in the first paragraph.

As to the motivation of your post, it is not as clear cut in my opinion, but I think I figured it out: I believe your motivation was to look at the raised issue impartially and cooly and under no circumstance get triggered by somebody's post or ridicule them. Did I get it right?

As you mentioned, you had a tendency to fall into cultish groups. So...
1. This is a cult and you fell hard and now you harboring some regrets.
2. This is not a cult, but you are reminding yourself that you have a tendency to 'follow the new prophet in town'.
Why did you start this thread?
If 1 is the case:
A. You realized, that you wasted 10 years of your life because of your cult-loving nature.
B. You just want to ruffle some feathers.
If 2 is the case:
A: It is a cry for help, that maybe someone would tell you that this is not a cult and you are just fine.
B. You think you are onto something important and you want to warn your fellow not cult-loving beings.
Solution for
1/A: I guess it's time to follow another prophet since this one turned out to be a forgery.(again)
1/B: It is NOT NICE to keep the poor moderators constantly vexed because of your inner problems.
2/A: Grow Up.

Yes, I will be definitely taking advice from someone who is reacting like a 12 year old who is mad because somebody said something bad about his favorite soccer player.

2/B: Maybe more reading and contemplating would help you solve this mystery.

 

[othree]

How have they been wrong about the vegetarian diet? They have said that everyone has different diet requirements and that the aliens prefer to eat vegetarians.

Creating a “miss list” seems unnecessary and pessimistic. If you don’t like what they have to say don’t read it. There’s enough negative crap going on in the world why not focus on the opposite.

So, seeing only what one wants to see - one's own confirmation of one's own believes - is something negative? It seems that this goes against everything the C's are teaching ...

Creating a "miss list" seems necessary to honestly examine the source.

Otherwise, it will be further corrupted, in my opinion.

In one of the sessions from 2021 or 2020 the group was discussing whether the Coronavirus exists or not, since some researchers claim it has never been isolated. The C's said yes, it does exist. Their answer was taken by Laura as the correct one, because as she said, the C's have a good track record. So she chose to believe them, not the renegade researchers. But how does Laura know about the C's track record? How good is it? Has this been quantified or objectively examined in some way? Is there a hit and miss list somewhere? Because so far I only see the hit list. That's not a way to be able to determine one's track record ....

 

[Aeneas]

I don't care WHY the information that came through was wrong, point is it was wrong. THEY ADMITTED IT. Which shows: This is not a perfect channel. Just like with any other channel or information or book or "expert" or website or research or whatever source. There is no 100% correct information anywhere.

How long have you been here? 10 years, and only now are you realising that there is no channel which is 100% correct.

Which makes the C's answer even more egregious and even more clear that it's good to remain skeptical about the channel.

Laura has said over and over again, that she herself is very sceptical about everything which comes from the C's and that what has been gained is by 90% hard researching and 10% inspiration from the C's. Yes, Laura calls it inspiration and not truth according to the C's. Yet it appears that you have read the C's transcript and taken them to be the gospel and now that things are different from how you have been interpreting the C's then you are getting all steamed up. It sounds like you are venting and that you have chosen to pull the C's down by posting several threads about how the C's are wrong.

I wrote my post to remind myself about this.

If it was simply to knock the idea out of your own head that what the C's say is the gospel then it is indeed good. It has been said over and over, both by the C's aswell as by Laura and others, not to worship the C's but isntead to study, network, learn and become aware of our reality.

But also: I believe that the first step to improve the channel is to become aware and admit that it's not a perfect channel and that they make mistakes.

I don't think anyone here but you think that the C's are perfect ro should be perfect. What you are suggesting has been Laura's modus operandi from the beginning. Laura and the team around her have taken measures to the best of their abilities to counteract our biases and still always been very suspicious of what comes through.

So I am just wondering what is going on with you personally since you after 10 years of mostly silence have decided to spit the dummy. Was there a particular topic in the last year which rubbed you the wrong way? Are the pressures all around getting to you? This would be understandable but I think opening up a thread or several threads, to question the C's and their lack of 100% perfection is barking up the wrong tree as that has never been the working hypothesis in regards to the communication with the C's.

 

[othree]

I like the original post because it was simple, bold and provocative - hoping that someone would raise exactly this observation that @gottathink brings forward so I could diplomatically add that such matters can be dangerously moved in the yes/no, back/white reads that loose the context.

The C's themselves use Yes/No answers often enough ...

I'll add from one who has resided in Texas for years ... an inner freedom is far superior to any that can be granted externally, because there's a deep divide that most here encounter every day in our experience with the cross section of people we encounter at home, neighborhood, work and across the cities and diversity of the state. I suppose there's a large enough presence of each side to keep the ball in the air, so to speak. Maybe I'm confusing or wishing for a feel of freedom that I fantasize would be accompanied with a sense of peace and safety.

 

[othree]

C's are just hinting (sometimes giving misleading hints, on purpose, to test our discerning abilities)

The more important it would be to have a "miss list" to weed out the misleading hints, I'd say ...

 

[seek10]

We are in the age of instant gratification with real time communication, able to share information instantly (whoever is looking- properly) driven by technology that runs on only binary (1/0 ). We have been bombarded with social media that runs on likes/dislikes , Govt. that runs on your-with-me/against-me while peddling narration of lone gun man theories for the population that only has to believe in one god (monotheism). The main loser in the process is the "context" ( i.e. "experience") and people became instantly triggerable based on the handful of media outlets narration became demanding and entitled.

Even one consider the imaginary case of there is no PTB peddling their dream project of reducing the global population, where does the authorities bring some cure for the phantom virus like "Covid" when people addicted to instant solution? Every body is making up some thing like head-less chicken, using the front of some "paid expert", covering their buns pushing for the magical bullet of "Vaccine". This is what happens when context goes out of picture for any problem. Reality is LOT more complex with all sorts of interests c

Sure, that's how masses are programmed to react.

I don't care WHY the information that came through was wrong, point is it was wrong. THEY ADMITTED IT. Which shows: This is not a perfect channel. Just like with any other channel or information or book or "expert" or website or research or whatever source. There is no 100% correct information anywhere. Never was, never will be. The C's themselves said as much when they rated the purity or correctness of their channel at something above 70% (forgot the exact number, but it was something like 74 or 76%). I wrote my post to remind myself about this.

Why does it need to be "Perfect" when it can make person to think and convey true meaning of reality - variable future on a individual/collective level(up to some extent). C's also said 3D proof's doesn't apply.

Q: (L) Mike Lindeman has proposed that we submit the channeling to 'rigorous testing.'

A: Mike Lindemann does not channel, now does he? What sort of rigorous testing does he propose?

Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want short-term predictions and all sorts of little tests...

A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?

Q: It tells us that he wants proof.

A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as we have explained again and again. Now, listen very carefully: if proof of that type were possible, what do you suppose would happen to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic Directive Level One?

Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you are believing in the proof and not the spirit of the thing. You are placing your reliance upon a material thing. You have lost your free will. Someone has violated your free will by the act of PROVING something to you.

A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is their prerogative!

Q: (PZ) {unintelligible but sarcastic sounding remark}

A: You did not completely understand the previous response, Pat. And what would constitute proof?

Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were verifiable about a number of things.

A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere coincidences. We have already given predictions, will continue to do so, but, remember, "time" does not exist. This is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and cannot and never will. The primary reason for our communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy, and assisting your advancement.

Q: (L) Are you saying that your primary reason is just to teach us? This small group?

A: Because you asked for help.

Q: (L) So, you came through because we asked. Is this material being given to others, or is it designed to or intended to be shared with others?

A: If they ask in the necessary way. Otherwise, the sharing of the messages we give to you will teach millions of others.

Q: (L) What is the 'necessary way?'

A: How "long did it take you?"

Q: (L) Well, it took all our lives and a LOT of hard work.

A: Okay, now what did we mean when we referred to "millions of others?"

Q: (L) Are you saying that this information will be transmitted in some way to millions of others?

A: In what way?

Q: (L) Well, the only thing I can think of is through books.

A: Bingo!!