This is like many other cases on this forum in which a person arrives and presents some random source of information that interests them or they want to promote.
They say something like "What do you think of this? They say this and this".
Forum members say, "It sounds bogus, probably, based on our experience and some specific details in it. Read this to see where we talked about something similar. [giving a link]"
Person: "But how can you know if you haven't read ALL of it?"
Forum: "Maybe we can't know with 100% certainty because we are still learning, but research takes time so it's more effective if one person who is interested checks it out first and reports their findings to see if it is worth any time.
You have already read or watched some of it, so what do they say?
Have you read the link we gave you?"
Person: "Why should I want to read that when you don't want to read what I give you? I think it's better if you read it than getting it from me."
Forum: "To us, what you bring is new, what is in that thread is old and well discussed. You don't add new to old without knowing the old first. There are a million things which are new to us, we have to pick which ones we focus on. This doesn't look useful, but if you can read the link with our old discussion and tell us exactly how this material relates to that or is better, we can have a discussion and might learn something. But if you think our material is a waste of time then we'll just follow our understanding and leave your material alone for now.
Person: "But I've read The Wave and it's the best I've ever found and I feel a deep connection to Laura, so I can tell you should want to read this!
Forum: "If you value Laura and her work so much why won't you read the link on her forum we gave you? She even posted in there."
Person: "[Quotes anything except the thread in the link, usually C's quotes or from The Wave]... You people should be more critical and not jump to conclusions. Whay are you so angry?"
One Forum Member: "Oh hey guys, actually some of us already talked all about that material about a year ago, not everyone might have seen it. Here's a link. [link]"
Person:
*POOF* [never to be seen on forum again...]
Wow but yes it is the lejendary Joe thank you for your intervention of such an intelligent person and who participates in the experiment cassiopea is an honor, well both Gurdjieff and Boris Mouravieff and others have spoken of adamic people, preadamicos, organic portals, that the soul is built and about the machine man among other things, well .... Taygeta's information about non real people tells us that there are fake people that are potential energy that are unreal people like a traffic light on the road and we have no way to determine who is real and who is not but if we can have some indications of psychopathic people, of those who do not have a critical and analytical sense of things and do not question is very likely to be fake people Matrix people and according to the data of the extraterrestrial taygeteanas of every 8 people only one is real greetings Joe.
Responding to the bold parts: Actually, the video contradicts this. (I have added punctuation because the video captions have none.)
At 3:19 in the video: "The program is complex, so they look like they are reacting sentient, but they are not. But, you can defeat the program, you can see the matrix in the reaction of the people."
At 5:30 in the video: "They differ from real people because although they look alike and are almost indistinguishable from the real ones. They are detectable by anyone with practice, though. there is no on inside them, no soul, no person having experience. They are just energy. It appears to be that only 1 in 5 people on Earth is real."
Especially in Terri's first few posts some of the comments that sound sarcastic could actually be due to the language barrier, however inaccuracies like these would likely survive even if they used machine translation.
Whats the difference to a lady communicating to entities, using an ouya board postulating that she is communicating with her future selfs?
Another wording of this question could be: 'Why should Laura channeling the so-called C's via ouija be considered more likely to be true than another group talking to so-called alien spaceship crew via the internet?'
I think a big part of the answer is: it depends on who you are and what you already know. In other words, where are we starting from? If we are total 100% beginners who only know the conventional world of popular science and 'the news', then obviously to us we would see no difference and they would boh look ridiculous.
But if we have seen and researched many claims of "true sources" that have contradicted themselves or been caught openly lying or being dishonest in other ways, then maybe in a new material we have never seen before we might see the clues of dishonesty without reading very much. There are virtually infinite things to read. If we see evidence of dishonesty based on our experience, hopefully we can avoid fake material and avoid virtually infinite dead ends. Otherwise, who knows, it might take a million lives to read it all! On the other hand, what if we have already those lives? Maybe in this life we wanted to find the knowledge necessary to spot the lies rather than read them endlessly?
cassiopaea.org
