Session 13 May 2017

[Chu]

No, it's not pretentious. It's just realistic. Asselineau was not in the mainstream media until one month before the election. Therefore, he was unknown by the general public. And we do not vote for someone we do not known. It is as simple. He did not have enough time to deliver his message.

Maybe. But still, his YT channel had almost as many views as Le Pen's, and much more than the others last time I checked. So, I wouldn't be so sure about what is realistic and what isn't.

However, this does not prevent me from recognizing the invaluable contribution of the Cassiopaeans. But, in that case, it doesn't match, and it seems to me that it is important to recognize it. It's not dishonorable to do that. It's the contrary.

Nobody said that they made perfect sense (at least not now). I was referring to those who said here or in other places that this would take credibility away from the Cs.

 

[idiaysan]

Thank you for another great session!

Laura, I've also made my contribution to FOTCM for your "Mother's Day Fund" In any case, you are like a mother of knowledge to all of us .
I am convinced that this safe medical treatment will do you good.

A big hug to all of you and again thank you very much for sharing ALL this knowledge

 

[Glenn]

Honestly, the official results seems to me closer to the reality. It reflects far better that french people wanted to vote...

I do find that statement a little strange, considering all the work done here to unearth our true reality. What is really going on. I am not from France, but followed the election closely because of this forum, and I saw nothing but, manipulation, propaganda, etc, the usual suspects. I would not expect the official results to be close to reality. Maybe you are trying to fit was said in the transcripts to your assumptions. One thing that you could take away from this session is that the PTB are going into overdrive, rigging way more than they normally would, essentially throwing caution to the wind. As Chu said, their propaganda is not working enough to solely rely on that. They are forced into more rigging, and I am sure that rigging on an election day is pretty chaotic from their perspective, having many, doing their thing, from many different places at the same time, so maybe they felt they had to overdo it just to be safe. There are many details we don't know, but assuming the official numbers are the most correct because they most closely align with your assumptions could be problematic. OSIT...

Added: Just read Joe's post. I agree with him that the rigging could be part of the reason that the numbers seem skewed from the session. I am sure the rigging was pretty chaotic on election day, and making sense of it afterward would be difficult.

 

[Joe]

The French team was having doubts about this session too, and I wrote somewhere else that I think that if French readers decide that the sessions aren't credible just for this one time (in spite of the huge track record they have) and these discrepancies, then maybe they shouldn't be reading the sessions. :P Also, it is possible that the Cs were trying to protect Laura by remaining vague, apart from the other reasons we have already speculated on. Who knows? But I think it's important to keep the bigger picture in mind, instead of focusing on so many details.

I live in France (as I'm French ;) ), and I followed the electoral campaign very closely. I talked with a lot of persons at work, or in my family, with friends, or even with people I didn't know and... the percentages given by the C's are just... impossible.

I am peplex too but, it is not easy to have a global view with personnal interractions only.

Exactly. Being French and living in France doesn't mean that you have a reliable population sample. Even if you talked to, say, 200 people, that is 0.0004 % of the voters, or something like that. There are many differences between regions, social classes, etc. To claim that one has an accurate view from that small sample is quite pretentious, IMO.

No, it's not pretentious. It's just realistic. Asselineau was not in the mainstream media until one month before the election. Therefore, he was unknown by the general public. And we do not vote for someone we do not known. It is as simple. He did not have enough time to deliver his message. So, no, there is not 3 people out of 10 who have voted for him.
However, this does not prevent me from recognizing the invaluable contribution of the Cassiopaeans. But, in that case, it doesn't match, and it seems to me that it is important to recognize it. It's not dishonorable to do that. It's the contrary.

Maybe the problem with the results given in the session is that there was rigging involved. If that is the case, then giving accurate figures would be very difficult. I tend to disagree though that the official results were accurate. The idea that Macron, of all people, would have secured most votes in the first round seems completely implausible. He would, IMO, have more likely received a single digit percentage. In the 2nd round things are more difficult given that a lot of people would have felt the traditional aversion to Le Pen, but that I think has waned a lot in France and I'd say that somewhere around 50/50 is more likely.

 

[BrendaH]

[quote author= chu]We often talk about how nice it would be if that kind of pain could be spread around a bit better, so that each of us could get some more and give Laura a break. But the way things are, all we can do is give in the best ways we can give.[/quote]

If we are willing to accept it and the other part is also willing to spread it so to say, so we don't violate anyone's free will, could we get some more pain and give them relief?

 

[Ant22]

No, it's not pretentious. It's just realistic. Asselineau was not in the mainstream media until one month before the election. Therefore, he was unknown by the general public. And we do not vote for someone we do not known. It is as simple. He did not have enough time to deliver his message.

Maybe. But still, his YT channel had almost as many views as Le Pen's, and much more than the others last time I checked. So, I wouldn't be so sure about what is realistic and what isn't.

However, this does not prevent me from recognizing the invaluable contribution of the Cassiopaeans. But, in that case, it doesn't match, and it seems to me that it is important to recognize it. It's not dishonorable to do that. It's the contrary.

Nobody said that they made perfect sense (at least not now). I was referring to those who said here or in other places that this would take credibility away from the Cs.

I've been thinking about the percentages too and my thoughts on this are in fact quite far from assuming there was something wrong with this particular session.

Let me share a couple of examples that led me to this conclusion (and do let me know if I ran too far with my thinking!):

Like this one: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34924.msg496582.html#msg496582

Q: (L) D4's next question: what did Paul say during his out of body experience, and why were these things not 'lawful for a man to speak?'

A: Jesus said: "Give to Caesar that which is Caesars."

Q: (L) How does that apply to this question?

A: Ponder for learning.

Laura’s note: This last exchange above takes on an all-new meaning in light of the recent (2013) discoveries that point to Julius Caesar having been the real “Jesus”.

I wanted to illustrate here that this could have been in fact a deliberate "miscalculation" and it will eventually become clear what the purpose of it was.


There was also that time when Laura had the "three dominos" dream. The C's said it wasn't an important dream but (in hindsight) given the similarity of the dream to the three WTC towers doesn't make it look like just an ordinary dream. Also, the proximity of the time Laura had the dream to an event when some military plane crashed in a manner that was similar to what later happened with the 9/11 planes made it even more interesting! The three Dominos dream was discussed in this session: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26027.msg310500.html#msg310500 Unfortunately I can't find the thread where the military plane crash is mentioned. If I mixed up the details do correct me of course.

Later when Laura asked the C's about this, they said the dream wasn't important but the realisations it led to were. In this instance the C's were most likely trying to protect Laura from the PTB trying to silence her. Just imagine the C's explicitly told her about WTC years before it was due to happen and the technology behind it was being tested - and Laura (as she does) started to research it!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the C's DO work in totally mysterious ways! So the fact that something doesn't make sense to us now doesn't mean it doesn't have any hidden meaning we are yet to learn about.

Also, please bear in mind all the attacks and investigations against Laura in France. This could have simply been a way to protect her. What if there's some loco stuff going on about that rigging and it's dangerous to learn about it now? Like it would have been dangerous to learn about the hidden meaning behind the 'three dominos' dream?

I do agree that it's likely there's more to those percentages than meets the eye. Even if it is simply the fact that all the rigging and variables it created makes a precise answer difficult - and that's why the C's said these were approximates.

 

[Divide by Zero]

On the issues of the C's answers, that is part of this reality and respecting free will.

The C's also held back about the Iodine. Sometimes it happens.

If you think of them as us in the future, would it be beneficial to get the answer from your future self? Would you truly trust it and if you think about branching timelines/etc, what if that information that you not yet are ready for creates another complication- a branch?


On sott.net today I had a thought spurred by the article on Greer's Disclosure project.

If 4d STS is also a possible "future of us", they are probably from a forced information- a violation of free will that affects US and THEM. How does it violate 4d STS? They cannot exist without having to manipulate us, 3d STS.
It reminds me of the movie, Predestination starring Ethan Hawke. It's the problem of existing in a state where you wouldn't exist had you not manipulated your past. No wonder why the C's said they cannot exist past 4d. I would think that is because their existence is dependant on having to tinker in ours.

There's also what Ark wrote on his page, that if there exists time travel- where you can send messages to your past selves, how could you be sure it would not be corrupted? In technology there exists a signature, something that only could be known by the sender and receiver. Perhaps that is why "error" exists, because something too clean could be a manipulated signal?



Laura, I wish you well with the stem cell therapy. I heard the founder of bulletproof coffee on a coast to coast AM interview a week ago who talked about it and it's benefits.


I will increase my monthly donation as soon as possible.

 

[Yas]

Thank you for the session! Fascinating, as always!

Laura, I sincerely wish you the best with this therapy!!! I'm so glad that you've already collected 3/4 of the necessary funds!! Thank you everyone!!!

 

[Cleo]

Thank you all for this latest session :)

I wish you success with the stem cell therapy Laura! Will work on sending a donation here soon today.

 

[A Jay]

Thank you for the new session, and thank you everyone who has contributed thus far to helping Laura get the stem cell treatment!

Just made a donation for Laura's 'Mother's Day Fund', transaction ID: 51M50539JK9645326

Accidentally forgot to put in 'Mother's Day Fund' in the note section, though.

 

[onemen]

The French team was having doubts about this session too, and I wrote somewhere else that I think that if French readers decide that the sessions aren't credible just for this one time (in spite of the huge track record they have) and these discrepancies, then maybe they shouldn't be reading the sessions. :P Also, it is possible that the Cs were trying to protect Laura by remaining vague, apart from the other reasons we have already speculated on. Who knows? But I think it's important to keep the bigger picture in mind, instead of focusing on so many details.

I live in France (as I'm French ;) ), and I followed the electoral campaign very closely. I talked with a lot of persons at work, or in my family, with friends, or even with people I didn't know and... the percentages given by the C's are just... impossible.

I am peplex too but, it is not easy to have a global view with personnal interractions only.

Exactly. Being French and living in France doesn't mean that you have a reliable population sample. Even if you talked to, say, 200 people, that is 0.0004 % of the voters, or something like that. There are many differences between regions, social classes, etc. To claim that one has an accurate view from that small sample is quite pretentious, IMO.

No, it's not pretentious. It's just realistic. Asselineau was not in the mainstream media until one month before the election. Therefore, he was unknown by the general public. And we do not vote for someone we do not known. It is as simple. He did not have enough time to deliver his message. So, no, there is not 3 people out of 10 who have voted for him.
However, this does not prevent me from recognizing the invaluable contribution of the Cassiopaeans. But, in that case, it doesn't match, and it seems to me that it is important to recognize it. It's not dishonorable to do that. It's the contrary.

Actually, I'm French too, and live in France and I have to disagree because clearly on Twitter for example Asselineau was everything but unknown. To the contrary His popularity rivaled thoses of Marine by the hashtag popularity marquer. It was the first time I actively partake on Twitter and within a day or two I was followed by a hundred likeminded Asselineau followers, to the point where I had to sort my following list to keep my feed clean and free of redundancy. He was Frequently the most popular hashtag with Marine.

His followings was going berserks by retweeting and arguing on every bits of informations with others candidates's supporters to the point were we were called as nuts and bolds cults members of Asselineau by the other supporters. I partake on this from some times too and I though at this times that it was impossible for Macron to pass because basically, I rarely came across a Macron supporter and as I'm into digital marketing studies, I concluded that either thoses Macron's supporters were fake "growth hacker" accounts or genuinely but not politically awake people at all. We joked that the medias claimed he was the youth candidates, yet where were they those Macron supporters youths because the ones we cames accross didn't argue and defend theirs champion like the LePen and Melenchon supporters. Actually I noticed the same also about Fillon supporters (not really activists).

I noticed the real opponents activists were the LePen supporters (I'd said 8 times out of 10) and the Melenchon which were noticeable but appart from arguing on comments, they didn't share videos, articles, infographics as much as Asselineau's and Marine's followers. On Facebook, his live coverage talk earned at least 10k viewers at every occurence.

Upon hearing about him for the first time. I browsed Youtube to gauge his popularity and this is where I realised he was clearly a real thing because he had the most views on serious/comprehensive overviews videos compared to others candidates (I substracted thoses videos that were just "buzz" or mocking/entertainement or not clearly centered around candidates programs). By Comparison to other candidates like LePen or Melenchon, it was easier to get a good overview of him because there were lots of knowledgable/insight oriented videos about him like : Conferences/Sayings/Argumentary on specifics subjects, lots of politicaly awaken influencers quality video makers were making real goods videos about him, but also a lots of peoples "homemade/testimonials" videos about why they will vote for Asselineau and stuffs, comparatively i didn't came accross the same amount of the same types of videos about Melenchon for example. By comparison I had a hard time finding the same types of comprehensives overviews videos on Melenchon/Lepen. Actually the good ones I found about thems were made by... thoses Asselineau supporters. :D

So in my mind, before the first round I though that clearly the real people favorites were (in order) : LePen > Asselineau > Melenchon and that Asselineau would at least score a double digit score, keeping in mind thoses that don't do the internet (the old peoples +50 yo). ...I clearly underestimated thoses freaking Macron fake accounts.

 

[Josi]

Thank you all for the new session!

Hoping we can all get Laura to Moscow ASAP!

 

[SeekinTruth]

Donated to the Mother's Day Fund a little while ago. Confirmation Number: 1DN49276AW0191640 from paypal. Very weird, trouble signing in to paypal, had to answer security questions and change password, get an email code then continue. Don't want to be paranoid, but every time something very important for Laura and the group is in the making, all sorts of weird things start happening.... Also, since the crystal project started it seems the sneak attacks escalated even more against Laura and the chateau crew.

Sounds like the needed funds will be available shortly, which shows how great the network is in coming through when something really major is on the line. Gives some cause for optimism that the negativity bombarded at us here on the BBM can be balanced by putting out positive energy and efforts (especially in the form of giving back for all we've received).

 

[seeker2seer]

Thank you so much for the session and sharing. I too had trouble with PayPal but was able to make a donation to the Mother's Day Fund ID 5N3497402L032020H. May you have a safe journey and full recovery for the times ahead.

 

[Digmo]

(Pierre) So they say yes, go to the clinic in Russia! [laughter]

(Joe) I think that was a long, "yes"!

[Everyone yammering at once]

(Andromeda) I think they're saying yes you should go...

(L) So basically that was a long way of saying that yes, I should try out the stem cell therapy?

A: [Answer comes veeery slooowly] Yes

Why might it have been so slow, just tired arms? I just remembered the session Laura directly channeled and VB asked Laura a question with a lot of wishful thinking in it and she felt pressure and said a very quiet "yes."Perhaps they didn't mean to say yes exactly because of free will but, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad idea.