C's Transcript After 28th Sept 02

[Windmill knight]

Regarding predictions, there is also this:

Q: (L) In terms of these Earth Changes, Edgar Cayce is one of the most famous prognosticators of recent note. A large number of the prophecies he made seemingly were erroneous in terms of their fulfillment. For example, he prophesied that Atlantis would rise in 1969, but it did not though certain structures were discovered off the coast of Bimini, which are thought by many to be remnants of Atlantis. These did, apparently, emerge from the sand at that time.
A: Example of one form of symbolism.
Q: (L) Well, in terms of this symbolism, could it be that [when you tell us things about our reality], you read events from 3rd density into sixth density terms and then transmit them back into 3rd; and while the ideation can be correct, the exact specifics, in 3rd density terms, can be slightly askew due to our perceptions. Is that what we are dealing with here?
A: 99.9 per cent would not understand that concept. Most are always looking for literal translations of data. Analogy is: novice, who attends art gallery, looks at abstract painting and says, “I don’t get it.”
Q: (L) Well, let’s not denigrate literal translations or at least attempts to get things into literal terms. I like realistic artwork. I am a realist in my art preferences. I want trees to look like trees and people to have only two arms and legs. Therefore, I also like some literalness in my prognostications.
A: Some is okay, but, beware or else “California falls into the ocean” will always be interpreted as California falling into the ocean.
Q: [General uproar] (F) Wait a minute, what was the question? (L) I just said I liked literalness in my prophecies. (F) Oh, I know what they are saying. People believe that California is just going to go splat! And that Phoenix is going to be on the seacoast; never mind that it’s at 1800 feet elevation, it’s just going to drop down to sea level; or the sea level is going to rise; but it’s not going to affect Virginia Beach even though that’s at sea level! I mean... somehow Phoenix is just going to drop down and none of the buildings are going to be damaged, even though its going to fall 1800 feet... (T) Slowly. It’s going to settle! (F) Slowly? It would have to be so slowly it’s unbelievable how slowly it would have to be! (T) It’s been settling for the last five million years, we’ve got a ways to go in the next year and a half! (F) Right! That’s my point! (T) In other words, when people like Scallion and Sun Bear and others who say California is going to fall into the ocean, they are not saying that the whole state, right along the border is going to fall into the ocean, they are using the term “California” to indicate that the ocean ledge along the fault line has a probability of breaking off and sinking on the water side, because it is a major fracture. We understand that that is not literal. Are you telling us that there is more involved here as far as the way we are hearing what these predictions say?
A: Yes.

I'm not saying that the predictions that Lauranimal mentioned were of the symbolic kind. Just a reminder that we should bear the above in mind.

 

[Franco]

Yeah, the Cs only have about an 80% accuracy (more or less) rating, so it's best to not bet the ranch on any kind of predictions. The reasons for this can be varied:

1) The open nature of the universe - what is probable today may change tomorrow with all the hidden variables adding and subtracting.

2) Future events cannot be clearly perceived for any given reality stream (many worlds theory) because of # 1

3) Interference on the receiving end of the information. (That would be me and/or any individuals present holding strong opinions or emotional beliefs that block or distort the info.)

4) Other reasons I can't think of right now.

Some people try to "interpret" wrong information but I prefer to just say it's wrong.

Of course, there have been a number of situations where we decided something was wrong based on what we knew at a certain moment and then later, MORE data came along that proved the Cs correct in essence, if not in exact wording.

Finally, the Cs say that time does not really exist so in some cases, we have observed that stuff happens, but not necessarily on the schedule we assume.

Yes, we all would like the information coming from the C's to be infallible, but it is not for reasons mentioned by Laura.

Firstly the C's mentioned after Frank left that part of the incorrect information had to do with predicting the future which seems to apply when after he left also.

Secondly as Laura said it depends who as is at the session, C's have stated the receiver and sender are equal and you may have noticed often Laura was not happy with the answers in sessions where certain people were there only.

Another point was that the C's can't always say things if it would violate the free will of someone attending a session, so technically the more people in a session the higher chance information may have to be left out.

If free will exists, it's not possible to know exactly what people will do 100% of the time, there can only be probabilities and if you have ever played any card games like poker, you know that 1% chance of something happening does happen and so does that 0.1% even to your great confusion.

Another thing to remember overall is these messages are generally for Laura to interpret as only she knows what is going on his her mind at that point in time, as she has stated the C's have flat out "lied" in the past in what she decided was a test for herself, example the SV transcripts about being the bravest human alive.

That's my 2c anyway.

 

[Lauranimal]

Thank you Laura, Windmill and Franko,

I think I have a better understanding, and it seems clear, at least thus far, that the C's have not offered any further info about info about a "April drop dead date." (yet) And for all we know... maybe something did happen in April, and nobody here in 3D-land has heard about it. (yet) Secrets do have a tendency to eventually come out.

 

[Yossarian]

Found Here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13891.msg105644#msg105644

Quote
23 Oct 2004

Q: (J) You mentioned before about a scandal at the Denver Airport. Is this still on or have things changed?

A: Yet to come. Just keep flapping.

Q: (H) Will this have to do with 911?

A: Yes. Oh, yes!

 

[cubbex]

Yeah, the Cs only have about an 80% accuracy (more or less) rating, so it's best to not bet the ranch on any kind of predictions. The reasons for this can be varied:

1) The open nature of the universe - what is probable today may change tomorrow with all the hidden variables adding and subtracting.

2) Future events cannot be clearly perceived for any given reality stream (many worlds theory) because of # 1

3) Interference on the receiving end of the information. (That would be me and/or any individuals present holding strong opinions or emotional beliefs that block or distort the info.)

4) Other reasons I can't think of right now.

Some people try to "interpret" wrong information but I prefer to just say it's wrong.

Of course, there have been a number of situations where we decided something was wrong based on what we knew at a certain moment and then later, MORE data came along that proved the Cs correct in essence, if not in exact wording.

Finally, the Cs say that time does not really exist so in some cases, we have observed that stuff happens, but not necessarily on the schedule we assume.

Or maybe Obama is the left hand of Bush.

 

[WIN 52]

Well, clearly, Bush is not dead and he is no longer president. While the same PTB are obviously still in control, I do wonder what the C's have to say on their apparent mistake.

What I got from what the C's said is that.... once a person is elected president of the USA, he/she remains president till that person dies. Even if a replacement is elected. Past president is still a president. I understood the C's to be answering that question accurately.

 

[mkrnhr]

And also that Bush is just a representation of the NeoCons, and they're still in charge IMHO

 

[pinkredpurple]

From Another Hit for the Cassiopaeans?

And here's what the Cs said in April, 2007:

Quote from: Cs


Q: What percentage of what we’re seeing today as global warming is
coming from manmade compared to cosmic?

A: 4 percent.

Q: (J) There ya go. So let’s buy a hummer. (laughter) (H) And are the people that are selling us the global warming…are
they aware that this is all….. all fake?

A: Some.

ok i am confused - so are we in for global warming (of course not man-made) or is an ice-age coming up as suggested in other sessions?

 

[Laura]

Why are you confused? The Cs did not confirm global warming.

 

[Nienna]

ok i am confused - so are we in for global warming (of course not man-made) or is an ice-age coming up as suggested in other sessions?

I, myself, would go with the ice age. ;) In case you are not aware of SOTT, here are a few articles about how cold things are nowadays.

The coming ice age could be just one winter away

Scientist says Arctic getting colder

Arctic ice sets 30 records in April - One for each day - The Ice Age Cometh

Of course, Laura has figured we are headed for another ice age for quite a while now. :)

 

[pinkredpurple]

Why are you confused? The Cs did not confirm global warming.

well didn't you or someone else ask them "which part of global warming is man-made?" and didn't they answer "4%"? so doesn't that imply that there IS global warming and that only 4% of it is man-made according to them?

 

[shijing]

Why are you confused? The Cs did not confirm global warming.

well didn't you or someone else ask them "which part of global warming is man-made?" and didn't they answer "4%"? so doesn't that imply that there IS global warming and that only 4% of it is man-made according to them?

The question was actually phrased as, "What percentage of what we’re seeing today as global warming is coming from manmade compared to cosmic?" So the context is probably relevant there, since it probably might depend what "what we are seeing" really referred to during that session. The C's mentioned on another occasion that cosmic (4D) forces were behind a lot of the turbulent weather that we see here which is interpreted as evidence for global warming. So in terms of that turbulent weather, the answer was that (only) 4% could be accounted for by human action. It didn't necessarily verify that global warming, in the sense that the meme is promoted today, was an accurate representation of reality, since turbulent weather can have other causes. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

 

[pinkredpurple]

It didn't necessarily verify that global warming, in the sense that the meme is promoted today, was an accurate representation of reality, since turbulent weather can have other causes. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

shijing - since you're answering to something i did not state, so no it does not clarify anything really. in my opinion things are not clear to yourself that's why you were not able to explain them to someone else either.

laura - following nienna eluch's links (thank you very much for that) to your article on the subject http://www.sott.net/articles/show/125454-Fire-and-Ice-The-Day-After-Tomorrow my confusion has become clear to me. the C's are basically verifying the "the day after tomorrow" movie's scenario: global warming causes ice age. so my confusion was justified: first we gonna encounter global warming which will lead to an ice age. that's the reason for people predicting both global warming and ice age at the moment. my error was in thinking that one excludes the other, while in truth it seems that they are connected. but in light of this and especially the transcript of the C-session at the end of the above cited link i do not understand your reaction in saying "the C's did not confirm global warming"???!!!
yes they did. at least twice. once here

A: Global warming, a part of the human experiential cycle.

Q: (L) I read where Edgar Cayce said that a sligth increase in global temperature would make hurricanes something like 5 times stronger... given a baseline temperature. Does this mean we are going to have stronger and more frequent hurricanes?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Will they hit land more frequently, or just spin out in the ocean?

and once by saying

Q: What percentage of what we’re seeing today as global warming is
coming from manmade compared to cosmic?

A: 4 percent.

Q: (J) There ya go. So let’s buy a hummer. (laughter) (H) And are the people that are selling us the global warming…are
they aware that this is all….. all fake?

A: Some.

and at the same time they say it's gonna lead to an ice age.
so i don't understand your reaction either.

anyway, thanks nienna eluch for your answer which was all i needed.

 

[anart]

shijing - since you're answering to something i did not state, so no it does not clarify anything really. in my opinion things are not clear to yourself that's why you were not able to explain them to someone else either.

'pink' - is there a reason you're coming across as belligerent?

laura - following nienna eluch's links (thank you very much for that) to your article on the subject http://www.sott.net/articles/show/125454-Fire-and-Ice-The-Day-After-Tomorrow my confusion has become clear to me. the C's are basically verifying the "the day after tomorrow" movie's scenario: global warming causes ice age. so my confusion was justified: first we gonna encounter global warming which will lead to an ice age. that's the reason for people predicting both global warming and ice age at the moment. my error was in thinking that one excludes the other, while in truth it seems that they are connected. but in light of this and especially the transcript of the C-session at the end of the above cited link i do not understand your reaction in saying "the C's did not confirm global warming"???!!!
yes they did. at least twice. once here

A: Global warming, a part of the human experiential cycle.

Q: (L) I read where Edgar Cayce said that a sligth increase in global temperature would make hurricanes something like 5 times stronger... given a baseline temperature. Does this mean we are going to have stronger and more frequent hurricanes?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Will they hit land more frequently, or just spin out in the ocean?

and once by saying

Q: What percentage of what we’re seeing today as global warming is
coming from manmade compared to cosmic?

A: 4 percent.

Q: (J) There ya go. So let’s buy a hummer. (laughter) (H) And are the people that are selling us the global warming…are
they aware that this is all….. all fake?

A: Some.

and at the same time they say it's gonna lead to an ice age.
so i don't understand your reaction either.

Again - is there a reason you're being so belligerent?

Regarding 'global warming' - the phrase, as it is commonly understood, refers to man-made warming of the planet through CO2 production which is a myth - it is not true. The entire solar system is experiencing variations in historically recorded planetary temperature due to the activity of the sun. This has been addressed time and again in SoTT articles and on the forum.

Your confusion and confrontational attitude doesn't make much sense, since these things are made quite clear in material freely available on this forum and its associated web pages, so what is causing your confrontational behavior?

 

[shijing]

It didn't necessarily verify that global warming, in the sense that the meme is promoted today, was an accurate representation of reality, since turbulent weather can have other causes. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

shijing - since you're answering to something i did not state, so no it does not clarify anything really. in my opinion things are not clear to yourself that's why you were not able to explain them to someone else either.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion -- I'm glad that the article Nienna pointed you to answered your questions, and I think anart has also done a good, concise job of summarizing the situation with global warming.

I also wonder, though, why the confrontational attitude? Your questions seem less like requests for information and rather more like demands -- particularly when you don't get the answer you expect. Would it not be better to ask for clarification in these cases instead of being rude? To this end, you might take a look at the concept of external and internal considering.