Thank you for your considered response. You make a lot of good points, especially about being careful with the works of alternative researchers.
Many of these alternative researchers have certainly done good research but have at times reached false or erroneous conclusions. That is true, for example, where Farrell speculatively links his Giza Death Star hypothesis with the destruction of the planet Tiamat, since we know from the C's that Kentak was destroyed as much as 70,000 years before the Great Pyramid was constructed. I must admit that I haven't read the Forum thread on Farrell. There are so many threads on the Forum that one can't simply read them all. Unlike Laura though, I wouldn't rush to judgement on Farrell by suggesting he is a conscious disinformation agent. He does critique people like Sitchin and Childress Hatcher and doesn't necessarily agree with their deductions. Please note that I never take anything I read as gospel. I trained and worked for over 40 years as a lawyer, so am used to weighing things up, as lawyers instinctively do.
As to the alternative researchers Laura mentioned in that extract, I would point out that the C's last year suggested people should read
Graham Hancock's work on the subject of giants, which I read as an endorsement. The C's also had this to say about
Hoagland in 1999:
Q: Everybody in the world is posting crazy, bizarre theories on the internet, and writing these elaborate web pages about their visions and their information from other 'sources,' and that the pyramid is a giant bell, or a clock that resets time, and so on and on....
A: Hoagland.
Q: Fine with Hoagland! He was on the radio the other night saying that Leedskallen moved his Coral Castle because he wanted to align it with Hoagland's proposed grid theory. That is clearly the most obvious foolishness since Hilliard told us about the moving of the Coral Castle and that it was because of some county regulatory reasons. That is the most ridiculous bunch of poppycock I have ever heard!
A: Whatever else you find true about Hoagland, just remember that genius resides adjacent to insanity!
Q: (A) What is the meaning of this remark about Hoagland?
A: Some of his stuff may be "poppycock," but some is right on the money, honey!
Q: (L) Well, what did Hoagland ever say about the pyramid? (A) He said that the way the Coral Castle was built was the same way the pyramid was built. (L) Well, we know that because Leedskallen said that himself! That's not news. Hoagland talks about this 19.5 degree latitude line and this double tetrahedron, but I don't know how that relates to something that is located at about 29 degrees of latitude such as the pyramid. That's about 10 degrees off. Has Hoagland ever opined about the pyramid itself?
A: Look it up!
I think the C's are employing here the approach that in England we would call 'not throwing the baby out with the bath water'. Incidentally, Hoagland did in fact write a long detailed article on the Great Pyramid, which I vaguely remember reading back in the 1990's. I don't know if Laura ever did look it up. I appreciate though that his work comes with a health warning.
However, you are absolutely right in advising that one should use great discernment when reading these various researchers' works. If they are not deliberate disinformation agents like Courtney Brown, then they are human and fallible just like us and can sometimes make 2 + 2 add up to 5. That doesn't discount all their research though, as some of it may still be valuable - witness Hancock who I have met and spoken to. He struck me as a nice chap, who happily answered my questions.
If it helps, when I research a matter before writing an article, I do as a rule use statements the C's have made on the subject in question as my starting point. When collecting all the material/evidence together for an article, I seek out what tends to support the C's statements. That is true, for example, where you say I might be "
jumping to conclusions about 'super-duper Kantekkian skulls' and getting lost in the
"magical Land of Woo", since that had nothing to do in fact with Farrell but came from the C's themselves. As an example of the clues the C's have given about the Grail, these are some of the extracts I have used and applied in my articles with additional comments by me inserted in red:
Session 26 July 1997:
Q: Okay. I have several books on the subject. I will start tomorrow. Now, when the Templars were arrested, they were accused of worshipping a head, or skull, and also the god Baphomet. Were these spurious accusations designed to defame them?
A: Skull was of pure crystal.
Session 20 June 1998:
Q: What was the head worshipped by the Templars that was supposed to have been called "Baphomet?"
A: Seer of the passage. [N.B. In the session dated 11 April 1998 (see below), the C's link the Holy Grail to the concept of greater sight.]
Q: What does that mean?
A: Remember, secrets of Knights Templar were kept in caves guided by eternally burning lamps.
As far as I am aware, the C's are the only ones to have made this statement about the skull being made of pure crystal, which makes it a significant clue in my view since many researchers down the centuries have opined on what the nature of Baphomet may have been without making that deduction. I have proposed the theory that the skull could have been the Holy Grail for a number of reasons. One is that pure crystal such as quartz is a fantastic medium for storing vast amounts of data, significantly more than the silicon chips we use in our PC's today. Secondly, the skull has never been found. Third, a crystal skull would not be considered as a technology per se, although it could be used alongside technology, which picks up on something the C's said in the Session dated 2 February 2003:
Q: One of the questions we would like to clear up is the issue of the Holy Grail and the Ark. Is the Ark of the Covenant - the ark thing given to the early pre-Mosaic Jews that you have described previously - the same as the Holy Grail?
A: No.
Q: (L) So there are two completely different technologies?
A: If you wish to term it such.
Q: (L) Why did they answer the question that way? What is the distinguishing thing between them? (A) Maybe 'as such' refers to the fact that you termed it 'technology.' Maybe this is not quite the correct term. Technology can be part of it, but maybe not the most important part. (Galahad) Is one an STS tool and the other an STO tool?
A: Yes and no. [
The Ark was definitely an STS tool but the Grail it seems could be used by either side.]
Q: (Galahad) Thanks guys! That's real clear!
A: This is an issue that will clarify itself soon enough.
Session 2 February 1994:
Q: (L) Who carved the
crystal skull found in Central America? [
i.e., The Mitchell-Hedges Skull]
A: Mayans.
Q: (L) What was the purpose of that skull?
A: Study brain. Long message follows pause: Now:
skull was to learn about soul;
reflective remolecularization imaging. Grays do this with abductees. [
This point connects with the operation of a TDARM or a time machine.]
Q: (L) Through what kind of instrument.
A:
Energy focusing. [
A lensing device will, of course, help in focusing - see also extract from the session dated 26 February 2002 below on this point.]
Session 28 June 1997:
Q: Okay. Now, I have an idea that the
allegory of the Grail is that it is related to the "
head." The head is composed of a core group of seven, which then creates the body via exponential increase in knowledge and energy. Is this correct as far as it goes?
A: Semi.
Session 19 April 1997:
Q: Am I correct in my assessment that the
origin of the Grail stories was the story of the
Head of Bran? [
In Celtic legend Bran also had a cauldron that may be compared to a chest or arc, from which we get the English word arcanum meaning secrets or mysteries.]
A: But what was the "origin" of
Brahna? [
I have proposed this is Abram or Abraham who may have been absorbed into Hindu Brahmanism culture through the Brahmin caste who would appear to have Jewish roots via the Babylonian diaspora. We also know from the C's that Abraham had the Grail in his possession.]
Q: Well, from the way I am interpreting what I have found, I have two possibilities: One is the
Celts from Kantek, and two:
a Nephilim hybrid. [
(1) We know from the session dated 26 February 2002 (see below) that the Grail, which was a device that in legend could manifest things, therefore would seem to have properties like that of the Matriarch Stone or Merkabah, which the C's say came from Kantek and (2) Abraham may well have been a late version (i.e., albeit much reduced in size) Nephilim hybrid.]
A: Could be
one and the same.
Session 11 April 1998:
Q: It seems that the Templars were in charge of building the Cathedral at Chartres, and there is a tableaux on one of the porches of Melchizedek and the Queen of Sheba. Equidistant between them is the Ark of the Covenant in a cart. Melchizedek is holding a cup that is supposed to be the Holy Grail. Inside this cup is a cylindrical object of stone. What is this?
A: Greater sight.
Q: What?! (A) Is it a symbol or a device?
A: Why cannot it be both?
Q: (A) It can be both, but is it both?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) So, it is a device for greater sight like a crystal ball, yes?
A: Only when utilized exactly precisely
Session 13 June 1998
A: What does stein mean, is it "written in stone?"
Q: Stein as in 'grail,' and stone as in 'philosopher's.' So, maybe we are getting close.
A: What does Einstein mean?
Q: 'One stone.' And a stein is a cup and a stone at the same time. So, Triesen is in the 'beautiful countryside between the Rhine and the alpine world.' There is an alp called Lawena, nearby Lake Constance, and the Swiss canton of St. Gallen. You said something about being buried in 'Galle' and this seems to have all the related elements collected together... all the key words... so am I... [
A crystal is, of course, a stone too.]
A: On the right track? It looks good.
Session 10 August 2001:
Q: Yeah, when I saw that picture on his webpage, I knew he'd been projecting that. He was sitting there focusing on it so I would see it. I told you, I showed it to you, didn't I? That was what I saw, that twisted up figure 8 thing. [Laughter.] I couldn't figure it out, what in the world it was. Is there an object buried in France I'm supposed to find?
A: Yes.
Q: Are we going to find it?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us what year we'll be finding it.
A: Two (tape ended and was blank for some time then picked back up with a segment of what sounded like a heartbeat)
Q: What is the object?
A: Holy grail.
Q: What is the holy grail? {Tape noise gets very, very loud here. Planchette was spinning around and drawing figures.}
Q: Huh. I don't know if they were drawing something or just playing. Guess they're not going to answer that one. Well, anything you want to ask? (A) Yes. It's pretty fun to be talking, so we're talking ... it's fun.
Session 26 February 2002:
Q: (L) Jay Weidner says that there is
something in the south of France that is very, very evil. Is correct in this assessment?
A: Not really. But
those guarding the secrets might be termed as such. Also they wish to make others think thus. Machiavelli! [
The Rosicrucians perhaps, who moved like a thief in the night against the Templars?]
[…]
Q: (L) Well it works. Is the place of safety at the end of time to be found in Peru?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is the place of safety a physical location on the planet?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is the
place of safety a hyperdimensional state of being?
A:
Yes. [
Entered through the 'White House' - Casa Blanca]
[…]
Q: (L) We were making some theories about this object that Vincent Bridges was looking for - the Ark of the Covenant, or the Holy Grail. I believe that we understand that this is an object that is of great usefulness,
some kind of lensing device. Is that correct? [
This is where Farrell's ideas about its possible use in the Great Pyramid for aiming purposes (phase conjugation) within a sophisticated weapon system (if his theory is correct) come in to play. Note the C's also say below that the device was in STS hands at one time so that it could have been used for negative purposes.]
A:
Yes.
Q: (L) Is this something that the STS groups - yeah, we know everybody on earth is STS, but I mean the heavy duty ones - had at one time and then lost, or lost control of?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) How did they lose it?
A: It was not so much "lost" as it
was "retrieved" and put away for safe keeping.
Q: (R & L) Who retrieved it?
A: 4th density STO mission.
Q: (L) Who is it that is looking for it? Is it 3rd density STS or 4th density?
A: Both.
Q: (L) If it is a 3rd density device why do 4th density critters want it?
A: It is a trans-density device.
Q: (L) Well if 4th density STS are so technically advanced how come they can't just make another one?
A: This item is tuned by consciousness. It is of such a frequency that STS gifts are not capable of such precision. The range includes multiple possibility vectors. STS operates within a narrow range.
Q: (R) So they can't make it, but they can use it. So they have to find one that is already created. (L) Is that possible? (A) Operated by consciousness. (L) They said tuned not operated. First of all we want to ask whether they mean tuned as in tuned when it was created or as tuned as in using. (A) There is this scenario that they will wait until the STO guy will find it and tune it, and still only then they will jump on 'em. (L) Right. Do you mean tuned as in the tuning of the creation or the tuning of the operation?
A: Creation.
Q: (A) Okay. Once it is tuned, it is tuned, right? (R) Yeah. And if it was similar to our simulation then tuning is done by exposing it to similar frequencies. (L) Or maybe assembling it by virtue of frequencies that are produced. But it still needs to be established whether or not they can see it. So we have theorized that the reason they can't find it, the only reason we can see for why they can't find it, is because for some reason it is protected by frequency or something and that they don't know where it is either. Is this correct?
A: Mostly. They have a general idea.
Q: What specifically prevents them from isolating the exact spot and getting it?
A: Occlusion.
Q: (A) What is occlusion? (R) I think that's similar to ...
A: Frequency fence.
Q: (R) Which is similar to what we've been talking about. If you don't have the same frequency it's ... (L) Or they can set a frequency around it that these guys can't tune to and can't penetrate. (R) It becomes invisible in some sense. (L) But they can still in some way detect a region or something. But it can be like noise or something maybe; so much noise that they can't isolate the signal. Is this the reason these people keep coming after us, because they want us to help them find this thing? Is this the reason?
A: More or less. Though not the only one.
Q: (R) Well I guess another major reason is just to disrupt in general. So more or less yes, but there are other reasons. Well Jay Weidner said that they now think that Frank is going to help them find it, that he is a channel for Set. (A) We don't know if this is true. What Jay Weidner says about their hopes about Frank. If that were true they would already have Frank they would be busy with Frank and they
would be leaving us alone. So, I don't think it is so important. (L) I don't either. It was just bait tossed out by Jay Weidner. (R) I was wondering about the possible positive uses of the device?
A: Multiple. In ancient times this object was called the Gift of God. It was used to aid in the manifestation of all things needful for existence. [
See also the reference to reflective remolecularization imaging, an attribute of TDARMs, in the extract from the session dated 2 February 1994 above.]
Q: (A) Manifestation? (R) That sounds like Merkabah. The Matriarch Stone. The Mother Stone. (A) So it can do all kinds of things ... (R) Is this the Merkabah?
A: Mother Stone, yes.
Q: (R) So that's it! This is the real meaning of the Merkabah. Pretty neat. And there is only one of these available. This puts a very strange aspect on all this. (L) Where was it created?
A: Kantek.
Q: Was this what was used to help transport the Kantekkians to Earth at the time of the destruction of their planet?
A: Some of them. Others transported by Lizards.
Finally, this excerpt from the
Session 26 July 1997 ,which dealt with comments on the Freemasons and the Knights Templar and may also relate to the Grail:
Q: You previously talked about 'undreamed of treasure in alfalfa fields of Rhineland.' Is this a physical, spiritual or knowledge based treasure?
A: It is all three.
Q: Who put this treasure in the alfalfa fields of Rhineland? [The "alfalfa fields of Rhineland" may be code here for the Merovingian Franks who were Germanics/Celts (clover being linked with the Celts as a kind of calling card) who came from the Rhineland and settled in France after the fall of Rome, occupying much of Southern France, including the area where Laura and the Chateau crew live and the Rennes-le-Chateau area, where legends of Visigoth /Knight Templar treasure being buried in the region persist to this day. However, it is also the area where the C's have implied the Grail may have been hidden, possibly by the Knights Templar who, according to legend and the Grail stories, guarded the Holy Grail - many of the French knights coming from this particular region of France. The reference to a "physical, spiritual or knowledge based treasure" would, I think, be a good description of the Holy Grail, if that is the treasure the C's had in mind here - as may also be the case with the French artist and Rosicrucian Nicolas Poussin in his painting of The Shepherds of Arcadia, which lies at the heart of the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau.
]
A: Discover.
Hence, the articles I post on the Alton Towers thread tend to follow where the C's clues lead me. I readily confess that I may have it all wrong here on the Grail but this is where the clues have led me so far. The point is that, like the scientific method you have astutely mentioned, which normally involves a peer review process in relation to published scientific papers, people are welcome to critique these articles, as they often do, and this can then lead to a refinement and improvement of one's theories and ideas or indeed a total abandonment.
As to the analysis of the meaning of ancient symbols, something Farrell frequently goes into, the C's actually had some good instructive guidance on this matter:
Session 22 June 1996:
A: Slowly, but surely. Now, get ready for a message: We have told you before that the upcoming "changes" relate to the spiritual and awareness factors rather than the much publicized physical. Symbolism is always a necessary tool in teaching. But, the trick is to read the hidden lessons represented by the symbology, not to get hung up on the literal meanings of the symbols!
"You've said that you understand the warning about getting caught up in a wild goose chase, but I'd posit that you may not have taken the warning to heart fully - that the warning remains theoretical, as it did for me, before some recent encounters with a large amount of pain. Certain lines of thinking can be hazardous to one's health."
That sound unpleasant. I am sorry to hear that. Did this involve STS forces or something?