Session 11 June 2011

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
While translatinig I stumbled upon a question. Could someone help me trying to understand the following sentence marked with blue?
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.
Is it the same as: "A lot of them think[ing] that vegetables are an optimal [food] fuel illusion."?
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
thorbiorn said:
While translatinig I stumbled upon a question. Could someone help me trying to understand the following sentence marked with blue?
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.
Is it the same as: "A lot of them think[ing] that vegetables are an optimal [food] fuel illusion."?
I would say one can simplify it as "A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel: illusion" for translation.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
mkrnhr said:
thorbiorn said:
While translatinig I stumbled upon a question. Could someone help me trying to understand the following sentence marked with blue?
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.
Is it the same as: "A lot of them think[ing] that vegetables are an optimal [food] fuel illusion."?
I would say one can simplify it as "A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel: illusion" for translation.
Thank you mkrnhr, I'll take that angle.
 

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
When I read it again, in English the original sounds fine. If you replace the word "think" with "believe in" it becomes clearer. What was being referred to was the illusion of "vegetables are an optimal fuel". Hope that makes sense.
 

Luks

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Well, here ->
A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.
Are about that certain people are vegetarians in order to think about themselves that they are more spiritual because they choose to eat vegetables.

Here ->
Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.
About that they are just misinformed and choose to eat vegetables because think that this is the proper way of feeding.

I am not especially good in English, but I think that the key is just read this one sentence only in full context. And take it into account while translating. Do not take just one sentence exclusively and search for the literal translation, because often it leads to suspension in the vacuum.

Maybe it could say: "A lot of them are in illusion thinking that vegetables are an optimal fuel."

Sometimes is fun to untangle language nuances.
 

DiscoveringTruth

A Disturbance in the Force
Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.
Hi everyone. What does this part mean? Human cattle? That is being very inconsiderate for a man who led a nation to independence from oppressive colonial rule without lifting a gun. Seems like a very dismissive and negative remark.
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
DiscoveringTruth said:
Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.
Hi everyone. What does this part mean? Human cattle? That is being very inconsiderate for a man who led a nation to independence from oppressive colonial rule without lifting a gun. Seems like a very dismissive and negative remark.
I think here is one explanation:

Laura said:
Peam said:
I don't think the C's meant that Gandhi was an OP because of what they said in this seesion. I could be wrong of course.

Session #960803

A: And who says that the Sun's twin appears every 3600 years?
Q: (L) Okay, we have the 3600 year comet cluster cycle, the Sun twin is another cycle altogether, and then we have the wave, which is a Grand Cycle. So, we have three
things causing a transition in nature?
A: Like "biorhythms."
Q: (T) And we have a triple bad day coming up! Or a good day, depending on which way you look at it.
A: Bad day if you are John C. Rockefeller, good day if you are Mahatma Gandhi.
I agree. I don't think they were suggesting that Gandhi was an OP but rather that he - and the rest of us who are oppressed - are thought of as "cattle" by some of those in higher densities.
Have you read the Wave Series from Laura? Because there Laura explains in detail the relation of higher densities and that we are food for them and in that sense cattle.
 

DiscoveringTruth

A Disturbance in the Force
Oh much thanks Gawan for pointing it out! Appreciate it!

Yes I've read the Wave series and I couldn't help but notice the Cs talking about aliens eating humans like we eat cattle. A very distressing and horrifying thought to say the least. A really depressing view of reality if that's actually how things are. But given highly credible information from navy aviators, generals, police sources etc that's available out there in the literature, it seems something sinister is indeed going on Earth.

I do hope then that as Gandhi brought freedom to Indians from the oppressive British rule, if a transition to 4D is real and symbolic, that it may bring a similar freedom from 4D STS' feeding to people across the world.
 
Top Bottom