C's Misses?

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
So why is there a "C's hit list"?
I don't know what world you live in. If any body worked on some thing for more than 5 decades and published it and it helped thousands (or millions as this information goes out to broader world), what is the point of promoting miss list specifically? No body hiding any thing here. We discuss here and learn as walk through this open future reality. Every thing takes energy "hit" or "miss". This information is under attack for so long, what is the point of giving weapon to others? Is it the only way of to be objective? What is your definition of "Objective"?
 
othree I believe these passages from In Search of Miraculous on G. ideas of groups will be useful to you:
"The next important feature of group work is that groups may be connected with some aim of which those who are beginning work in them have no idea whatever and which cannot even be explained to them until they understand the essence and the principles of the work and the ideas connected with it. But this aim towards which without knowing it they are going, and which they are serving, is the necessary balancing principle in their own work. Their first task is to understand this aim, that is, the aim of the teacher. When they have understood this aim, although at first not fully, their own work becomes more conscious and consequently can give better results. But, as I have already said, it often happens that the aim of the teacher cannot be explained at the beginning.

"Therefore, the first aim of a man beginning work in a group should be self-study. The work of self-study can proceed only in properly organized groups. One man alone cannot see himself. But when a certain number of people unite together for this purpose they will even involuntarily help one another. It is a common characteristic of human nature that a man sees the faults of others more easily than he sees his own. At the same time on the path of self-study he learns that he himself possesses all the faults that he finds in others. But there are many things that he does not see in himself, whereas in other people he begins to see them. But, as I have just said, in this case he knows that these features are his own. Thus other members of the group serve him as mirrors in which he sees himself. But, of course, in order to see himself in other people's faults and not merely to see the faults of others, a man must be very much on his guard against and be very sincere with himself.

"He must remember that he is not one; that one part of him is the man who wants to awaken and that the other part is 'Ivanov,' 'Petrov,' or 'Zakharov,' who has no desire whatever to awaken and who has to be awakened by force.

"A group is usually a pact concluded between the I's of a certain group of people to make a common struggle against 'Ivanov,' 'Petrov,' and 'Zakharov,' that is, against their own 'false personalities.' "Let us take Petrov. Petrov consists of two parts—'I' and 'Petrov.' But 'I' is powerless against 'Petrov.' 'Petrov' is the master. Suppose there are twenty people; twenty 'I's' now begin to struggle against one 'Petrov.' They may now prove to be stronger than he is. At any rate they can spoil his sleep; he will no longer be able to sleep as peacefully as he did before. And this is the whole aim
"More difficult tasks, although they are only subjectively difficult, are called 'barriers.' The peculiarity of barriers consists in the fact that, having surmounted a serious barrier, a man can no longer return to ordinary sleep, to ordinary life. And if, having passed the first barrier, he feels afraid of those that follow and does not go on, he stops so to speak between two barriers and is unable to move either backwards or forwards. This is the worst thing that can happen to a man. Therefore the teacher is usually very careful in the choice of tasks and barriers, in other words, he takes the risk of giving definite tasks requiring the conquest of inner barriers only to those people who have already shown themselves sufficiently strong on small barriers.

"It often happens that, having stopped before some barrier, usually the smallest and the most simple, people turn against the work, against the teacher, and against other members of the group, and accuse them of the very thing that is becoming revealed to them in themselves.

"Sometimes they repent later and blame themselves, then they again blame others, then they repent once more, and so on. But there is nothing that shows up a man better than his attitude towards the work and the teacher after he has left it. Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

"But this is not the chief thing; the chief thing is his own personal attitude, his own valuation of the ideas which he receives or has received, and his keeping or losing this valuation. A man may think for a long time and quite sincerely that he wants to work and even make great efforts, and then he may throw up everything and even definitely go against the work; justify himself, invent various fabrications, deliberately ascribe a wrong meaning to what he has heard, and so on."

"What happens to them for this?" asked one of the audience. "Nothing—what could happen to them?" said G. "They are their own punishment. And what punishment could be worse?
I consider this forum to be a group, whether or not that is its intention. We have to trust others in the group to tell us how we are behaving, even if it can be wrong we must be willing to seriously consider their input. Right now, you are lashing out at the group instead of listening to advice. Ask yourself, which 'I' is in control?
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Othree, I think that what is rubbing us the wrong way is your approach to it. You mention many things which you declare blunders but don't give context and the specific session details. Laura has warned many times not to read only the sessions as it fits within a context.
A thread you opened a year ago with the same object has an example:
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?
As it was clear, Trump did win. As to him instituting martial law, that is not what the Cs said. They did not say that he would institute martial law. It this case it was what participants assumed, not realising perhaps that Trump could win without being declared the official winner.

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
No martial law in place as such but something very close to it. So context is important and if you want to discuss things it is necessary to clearly fish out what is said and what is inferred by you or others.
So the things the C's have been wrong about include:

- circumstances of death of princess Diana
- Vegetarian diet
- How the WTC towers came down on 911
- Identity of Ceasar / Jesus
- Time when the comet cluster will hit (yes, I know time doesn't exist, plus it's very flexible etc. But still, they gave a pretty definite time frame at one time at least, instead of just saying "open" or something to the effect. So they were not correct at least that one time when it came to the time scale)

There are certainly more things, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Again, please give specific context, like with the vegetarian diet. Find all the quotes about what the C's said about it with the context and then it is open for all to see, read and learn from.
If no one believes that the C's are perfect or should be perfect and people don't believe them blindly, as you say, then a "miss list" or an examination of their blunders should not be a problem ... and yet, judging from the triggered and hostile response by some of the "supermoderators" it seems that this is a problem ...
As itellsya said:
As others have said; not necessarily. Because we're already working on the assumption that what the C's say is up for discussion; that it's not automatically a 'hit'.

I'd also note that, when we discuss a hit, we don't just label it a hit and move on, taking the exact quote as gospel and that nothing else was learned. Any hit is also nuanced, and often leads to other understandings and investigations, that can also be the case with these 'misses' that you're referring to.
I tried to read a few of Laura's books, but couldn't get through. As much as I admire her work, and love watching her talk (a pity she hasn't kept it up on Youtube), she is one of the all time worst writers in history, I believe.
So you didn't actually read any of Laura's work, yet you admire her work AND think she is the all time worst writer in history. That is quite a mouthful in two short sentences. You haven't read any of Laura's work, but you truly admire it, but you think she is an abominable writer. Nothing like putting someone up on a pedestal without knowing anything about what they are about and then in the next sentence shooting them down.

So, it looks as if you have an axe to grind against the Cs, Laura, Joe, the moderators and everybody else in general who has learned something from the Cassiopean experiment. You are doing well for yourself and all in a days work. So why are you really here?
 

Seamus

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I tried to read a few of Laura's books, but couldn't get through. As much as I admire her work, and love watching her talk (a pity she hasn't kept it up on Youtube), she is one of the all time worst writers in history, I believe. I read her co-authored book with Pierre Lescaudron and that was really good, but judging from her past works, I assume this was mostly Pierre's doing. So, no I haven't read much of her books. I did read some of her blog posts and other internet articles, though.
Really? I think that's uncalled for and now you're just trolling. Why would you say it like that except to get a reaction? If you really admire Laura's work why are you tossing in a personal attack?!? Come on now.
 

othree

Jedi
The C's were asked whether Princess Diana's death was a murder.

Here is what they said:

Q: (T) Was she murdered?

A: Would murderer agree to be crushed to death?? What future is there in that line of work?

I assume their answer can be interpreted as "no", in the sense that it was not a murder?

But her death was ruled an "unlawful killing" by a 11 person jury: Death of Diana, Princess of Wales - Wikipedia
More here: Unlawful Killing - The Murder of Princess Diana and Why it Matters -- Sott.net

Unlawful killing - isn't it another word for "murder"?

Although, admittedly, the C's keep it vague enough to be able to interpret it in a way where both the fact that it was an unlawful killing (some form of murder, I assume?) and the fact that she was not necessarily murdered by a single or a group of individuals could be true .... But there was enough foul play going on to raise questions I think is the bottom line of this article: Unlawful Killing - The Murder of Princess Diana and Why it Matters -- Sott.net

Q: We would like to know if there is any significance to the fact that Mother Theresa and Princess Diana both died within a week of each other?

A: Vague.

Q: Why didn't you tell us that Princess Diana was going to get killed in an auto accident? That's pretty big news!

A: You would not have benefitted, and, besides, it was not predetermined. Just one possible future.

Q: Why was this particular future the one that manifested?

A: Because it was chosen.

Q: Why?

A: No escape any other way.

Q: For who?

A: Diana.

Q: Escape from what or who?

A: Judgement.

Q: Judgement by whom?

A: You pick. She was damned if she did and damned if she did not.

Q: (T) Let me ask: is she dead?

A: Yes.

Q: Was there any factor involved in her death that could be connected to any secret groups on the planet that wish to bring down the monarchy?

A: No.

Q: So, this wasn't part of a plot to bring down the monarchy?

A: Soul mates.

Q: She and Dodi were soul mates?

A: Yes.

Q: And they decided to leave together...

A: Yes, at another level.


Q: Is there any special significance to the fact that they were soul mates?

A: No, only way out, and valuable lessons learned by everyone else.

Q: So, this was a gift?

A: And STO. And the same with Mother Theresa who waited for the proper timing, so that others would notice what you did.

Q: (T) Well, things usually happen in threes... who is next?

A: “Usually threes” is an old wives tale.

Q: So, from one perspective, the death of the Princess is nothing more than a tragic accident?

A: We did not say that.

Q: So, she chose this because it was the only way out... (T) Was she helped along? Was there more to it than choosing the time and the way?

A: There always is.


Q: Can you list some of the other factors involved?

A: Lessons, that is all there is!!

Q: (T) Was she murdered?

A: Would murderer agree to be crushed to death?? What future is there in that line of work?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
O3, you seem to be a person who would like some clear yes and no answers and/or who doesn't have the patience of the long view of things. Another thread was started by you on the 26th of December 21, also trying to find a yes and no to something the C's said would happen. Everyone here knows that isn't going to happen.

You come across as an authoritarian follower who favors black and white thinking as well as a person of little faith. External pressure of the reality has certainly increased a lot in the last couple of years and if there is little to no internal fortitude within an individual, then this can lead to disaster. We have seen quite a few people slowly disintegrating in recent times...

I guess ozone therapy isn't as beneficial as claimed if it leaves one open to soul smashing.
 

othree

Jedi
O3, you seem to be a person who would like some clear yes and no answers and/or who doesn't have the patience of the long view of things. Another thread was started by you on the 26th of December 21, also trying to find a yes and no to something the C's said would happen. Everyone here knows that isn't going to happen.

You come across as an authoritarian follower who favors black and white thinking as well as a person of little faith. External pressure of the reality has certainly increased a lot in the last couple of years and if there is little to no internal fortitude within an individual, then this can lead to disaster. We have seen quite a few people slowly disintegrating in recent times...

I guess ozone therapy isn't as beneficial as claimed if it leaves one open to soul smashing.

For someone who has been so wrong, so many times in her life, and publicly to boot, you seem to be terribly sure of yourself in judging another person based on a few posts on your forum ....

I still wish you had kept up the Youtube videos. You come across great on camera.

And I also wish you had better writing skills, it would have been so much more useful to people, since you are able to connect the dots very well, it seems.
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
If you want to be given all the facts at any moment on a silver platter, you're at the wrong address. You're completely missing the purpose of it all: It is for us to do the work and for us to figure out the truth, and even that can change with new information. You haven't even read all of Laura's work and you think you're in a position to 'dissect' the transcripts for 'misses'. Also, I disagree with you, I think Laura is one of the best, if not the best, writers out there.
 

othree

Jedi
The way many moderators, administrators and long time posters are behaving here, reminds me of myself years ago when I started moderating an online group 8 years ago: Triggered by the smallest criticism and taking things personally.

I learned not to do this and now I rarely get triggered or post in anger or in emotional turmoil. But it took a lot of blunders on my part to get there.

It is sobering to see that even those who preach to remain cool, not take things personally, see reality as it is, not fall into emotional traps, fail miserably themselves in those things, as demonstrated on this thread and many others on this forum.

I admit I had the naive perception that people here were better or more evolved in that sense.

Oh well ...
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
This coming from someone who has apologized to me about his past "non-calm" behavior?
How about you lead by example?


Talking about "projecting" ...

So since I wasn't calm in a previous post to you, that means all future posts from me to you are also going to be "not calm"? That doesn't sound very reasonable. Please tell me where I am being "not calm" in that post and how I am projecting. If you can't have a reasonable discussion about this topic, then I don't think it's going to serve you or anyone else.
 

irjO

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
For someone who has been so wrong, so many times in her life, and publicly to boot, you seem to be terribly sure of yourself in judging another person based on a few posts on your forum ....

I still wish you had kept up the Youtube videos. You come across great on camera.

And I also wish you had better writing skills, it would have been so much more useful to people, since you are able to connect the dots very well, it seems.

Ok now you are being childish here! Everyone can be wrong here in one way or another in the past and also in the present, nobody is perfect. And isn’t that the way we learn things in this reality? You are definitely projecting here and can’t take the heat when facts are thrown at you!
Nobody it’s attacking you, they are simply responding to your questions and suggestions.
Again, what is the purpose of discussing the miss “predictions” of the Cs?? Would you learn something about it? Or is it that you just feel angry because you believed on some of the stuff and it turned out to be something you weren’t expecting? If you don’t understand the nature of how the forum works and the Cs; Basically meaning an inspiration or just a simply guide in some of the stuff we can’t answer then I think you are in the wrong place.
 

Opossum

Jedi Council Member
And I also wish you had better writing skills, it would have been so much more useful to people, since you are able to connect the dots very well, it seems.
I have no problem with Laura’s writing skills. Why are you taking your personal opinion about her skills as an objective fact? That’s like saying that strawberries taste bad because you personally don’t like them. I don’t understand how you can make a judgment like that.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I admit I had the naive perception that people here were better or more evolved in that sense.

Your current belief that people here are less "evolved in that sense" appears to be equally naive. Again, if you can't have a reasonable discussion where you back up your claims with evidence and a reasoned discourse, then I don't think any of this will serve anyone and will simply devolve, as it has already done, into spurious accusations that take us further and further from the entire point of the topic. Unless, that is, your point was to throw shade at people here and the forum in general due to your apparent feelings of having been 'betrayed' in some way by the lack of accuracy of the sessions.
 
Top Bottom