Session 21 March 2020

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Anther part from the sessions which describes how the Minoan civilization was destroyed:

Q: (L) Knossos lasted for about another 75 years after the events which destroyed most of the Minoan civilization. What were the events which brought about the final downfall of the Minoans?

A: Meteor borne parasites. Meteor destroyed city.

And the same thing happened at the end of Rome and in the Middle Ages. So the parasites always follow the comets/meteors.
 

Εἰρήνη

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Is virus a living thing?

Based on my understanding of what a virus is, and based on how I understood what the C's said, I would say virus is a living thing.

This Scientific American article from 2008 summarizes how the view of official science on viruses changed over time:
First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.
This study from 2015 adds to the evidence that viruses are alive.
However this research did not convince the entire scientific community that a virus is 100% a living thing.

What do you think?
 

Attachments

  • 1595199196409.png
    1595199196409.png
    72.8 KB · Views: 13

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I think the question whether viruses are alive or not is largely a semantic question and depends on how you define ‘life’.

But good to see mainstream science starting to embrace the fact that viruses played an important role in ‘evolution’. Problem is, they’ll just try to squeeze that into their tired old Neo-Darwinian theory, to no avail. of course.
 

Kari Baba

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Is virus a living thing?

Based on my understanding of what a virus is, and based on how I understood what the C's said, I would say virus is a living thing.

This Scientific American article from 2008 summarizes how the view of official science on viruses changed over time:

This study from 2015 adds to the evidence that viruses are alive.
However this research did not convince the entire scientific community that a virus is 100% a living thing.

What do you think?

I just thought that this session actually answered the question of whether viruses are alive or not.

 

Εἰρήνη

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
In this session C's said:
A: Yes and this is the interesting factor: The virus can change DNA making individuals more susceptible to cosmic information of the STO variety. It can also enhance and activate long suppressed codons of a beneficial nature. So you can see why they are so desperate to halt the spread.
I wonder if it has something to do with the news that came out recently:
Here is the article on Sott
From that article:
salivary_banner_x.jpg

Based on the tubarial glands' similarities to the volume and draining system of the sublingual gland — one of the three major salivary glands — the authors suggest that the new glands should be classified as a fourth major gland.
What if this is a result of that DNA change activated by the virus?
What if this new organ can help us to open up our potential more?

Has this organ been there before the virus?
I wonder what functions this organ carries out in our body.
What if other things are getting activated right now?

Maybe the C's could clarify if this new discovery has something to do with the virus.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Maybe the C's could clarify if this new discovery has something to do with the virus.

@Εἰρήνη

I am not sure this lab created virus would have a connection to scientists discovering possible pre-existing saliva glands. There are many things yet to be discovered like "an as yet undiscovered enzyme related to carbon".

Session 23 September 2000:
Q: Now, let me get to MY questions! You once said that the core of DNA is an as yet undiscovered enzyme related to carbon. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Here in this book it says:

"Evidence is accumulating that only a relatively small portion of the DNA sequence is for so-called structural genes. Structural genes lead to the production of protein. There are an estimated 50,000 structural genes with an average sized of approximately 5,000 base pairs, which then accounts for only 250 million of the estimated 3 billion base pairs. What is the rest of the DNA for? Some of the DNA is so-called repetitive sequences, repeated thousands of times. The function is unknown. The ALU, repeat, for instance, contains over 300,000 copies of the same 300 base pair sequence. Certainly this DNA is not junk and plays some important role in the gene regulation chromosomal architecture or chromosomal replication. Until 1977, it was thought that genes were single sequences of DNA that are coded into RNA and then into protein. However, further study has shown greater complexity. It is now known that there are pieces of DNA within a gene that are not translated into protein. These intervening sequences, or INTRONS, are somewhat of a mystery, but appear to be a very common phenomenon."

Now, is this thing they are talking about, these INTRONS, are these the core that you were talking about?

A: In part.

Q: What about this ALU repeat with over 300,000 copies of the same base pair sequence. What is it?

A: Tribal unit.

Q: What is a tribal unit?

A: Sectionalized zone of significant marker compounds.

Q: What does this code for?

A: Physiological/spiritual union profile.
 

lilies

The Living Force

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A: Bad day if you are John D. Rockefeller, good day if you are Mahatma Gandhi.
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. reported lower third quarter profits after unrealized investment gains declined.
Published: Nov. 6, 2021 at 9:08 a.m. ET

Berkshire BRK.A, +0.21% BRK.B,+0.07% said Saturday that its third-quarter net earnings fell to $10.34 billion, or $6,882 per Class A share equivalent, from $30.14 billion, or $18,994 a share, in the same period a year earlier.

Operating earnings, which exclude some investment results, rose to $6.47 billion from $5.5 billion a year ago.

The conglomerate runs a large insurance operation as well as a railroad, utilities, industrial manufacturers, retailers and even auto dealerships. It also holds large investments, especially in the stock market. An accounting rule change in recent years has meant that Berkshire’s earnings often reflect the larger performance of the stock market, while operating earnings more accurately reflect the firm’s vast business operations.

The major U.S. stock indexes touched record highs in early September before slumping in the final weeks of the quarter as investors fretted over higher consumer prices and supply-chain bottlenecks. The S&P 500 index eked out its sixth-straight quarter of gains. Other benchmarks, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average, ended the period lower.

Losses from Berkshire’s insurance underwriting business widened to $784 million in the third quarter from $213 million a year ago. Insurance investment income rose to $1.16 billion from $1.02 billion.

The company’s railroad, utilities and energy units earned $3.03 billion, up from $2.74 billion in the year-earlier period.

Berkshire’s Class A shares closed Friday at $434,000. They have climbed 26% so far this year.

The company remained an active buyer of its own stock during the third quarter, spending about $7.6 billion on share repurchases. For the first nine months of the year, buybacks have totaled $20.2 billion.

How wishful thinking gets them every time.

1636273354823.png

When greed overrides reality only disaster can occur in like 2008.

October 19, 2021

Meanwhile:
1636276106161.png
1636276475559.png
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom