December 26, 1998
Laura, Ark, Frank
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Zanea.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
{Personal discussion redacted.}
Q: (L) Okay, I have discovered that this author, Goodrich, thinks that the island of the grail castle was the Isle of Man. There are a huge number of the clues you have given on this grail quest that seem to converge in this area, including the coast of Scotland. There is a cave where Merlin is supposedly buried, four churches, the Isle of Man, the little islet of St. Patrick, the churches of St. Patrick and St. Germanus, or ruins of them, standing next to each other, and the church called "Candida Casa" in a meadow, or field, that was dedicated to St. Augustine; there is a place along the coast called 'Rhinn' and the northern part of Wales was formerly called 'Galles.' So, it is like all of these things converge to this area, and there is the consideration that King Clovis of the Franks was a contemporary of Arthur and there may have been blood connections. Am I on the right track with these churches in this area?
A: Maybe so, but you did not finish with the previous subject!
{Personal discussion of no benefit to others redacted.}
Q: (A) Why should we be more responsible for our children than for other people?
A: What do you mean?
Q: (A) Why do we worry so much about our children when they are grown; we spend so much energy on this; we lose sleep; but these are separate souls, so should we not practice to become immune to this worry? Why do we worry about our children?
A: Genetic/emotional/hormonal/instinctual/karmic interface is most intense there.
Q: Does it have to do with a pre-life agreement to interact in certain ways, to do certain things?
A: Partly. Souls chose you as a vehicle for primary learning regarding karmic lesson profile.
{…}
Q: Okay, I am done. (A) I was trying to put together things related to research on UFT, and the questions I have asked recently. After a time of being quite desperate, because I could not put these things together, I could finally see some dim light. So, I would like to ask. But, please do not reassure me if what I think is wrong... just tell me it is wrong, and I will look for something else. I came up with the idea that we should model our space time on a kind of a surface embedded in a higher dimensional flat space. This would account for several things that you have told us. At some point you said the following: 'Old makes new again,' which suggested that we should come back to what Einstein was thinking, and then you said 'equilateral versus hypotenuse.' I didn't have a clue, but then I got an idea that it is related to different kinds of tensors with three indices, rather than to geometrical features. Is this guess correct?
A: Partly, but geometric figures provide a third density guide for visualizations of field concepts.
Q: (A) Hmmm....
A: Pyramids inverted upon one another.
Q: (A) Where to put these pyramids?
A: Hexagonal representation of flat plane...
Q: (A) What is hexagonal representation?
A: What does a hexagon look like when converted to three dimensional representation?
Q: (L) Well, a 'flat pyramid' is a triangle, and a triangle has three points, and two triangles inverted becomes a sort of Star of David, and that has six points and is a sort of hexagon... (L) Well, this hexagon business... two dimensional inverted pyramids make a Star of David. But, what if these pyramids were really tetrahedrons? They LOOK like a hexagon in a plane, but in 3 dimensions... (A) They are octohedrons... Octonions... hmmmm....
A: Vortices... this is what your "wormhole" would look like.
Q: (A) Now, we have a problem here, because you speak in terms of features, geometrical features, and I would like to convert this to equations which...
A: Okay, what is the problem?
Q: (A) I want to describe gravity, and to describe gravity I must have some geometrical quantity which describes this gravity, so my idea is that gravitational field is described by the bending of our space time in a higher dimensional flat space... A: Yes...
Q: And that this bending would describe both gravity and electromagnetism.
A: Yes...
Q: (A) In all this I do not see a place at all for tetrahedrons. What do they have to do with a bent surface?
A: Maybe you do not see yet.
Q: (A) But, still I want to understand what was all this talk about tetrahedrons. So, I thought about tetrahedrons that I have worked with and met in my research. There were several occasions. First, there are tetrahedrons which we need if you build a continuous theory of completely discrete elements. Then we do the triangulation of the surface, or we need tetrahedrons to triangulate space, so let me call it Place One. Place Two: tetrahedrons I understood as symbols because tetrahedrons have three edges from each vertex, so I thought this three should represent third order differential equations. Place Three: I use tetrahedrons for describing magnetic monopoles, but they were not necessary, and I have no other way to put tetrahedrons into the idea to bend geometry. If things are fluffy, what are tetrahedrons doing there? I have no clue at all! So, I want to ask about a possibility of describing different densities. It came to my mind that perhaps Einstein, when you spoke about variable physicality, that Einstein was afraid when he understood that in his work. I thought about this and I think that Einstein determined that the future must be determined from the past and present, and when he found that he had a theory where the future was open, he dismissed it and was afraid. Is this a good guess that variable physicality, mathematically, means a theory where there is a freedom of choosing the future when past and present are given?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Is it related to the fact that we should use higher order differential equations, not second order?
A: Yes. Einstein found that not only is the future open, but also the present and the past. Talk about scary!!
Q: (A) All you have said so far points to an idea by a Swiss guy named Armand Wyler. This Wyler found a way to compute from geometry so-called Fine Structure Constant, which is a number and can be found experimentally. Then, of course, he was invited to Princeton to explain how he did it, and apparently he failed to explain himself, and he ended in an asylum for the mentally deranged. The question is: if I follow his way of thinking, can I succeed in deriving and understanding the nature of this Fine Structure Constant?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Well, if I do it, should I keep it a secret so that I won't end up in an asylum?
A: The problem with Wyler was with the audience, not the speaker.
Q: (A) What does that mean? (L) I guess it means that the people he was talking to couldn't grasp it, not that he couldn't explain it. Did he really lose his mind, or was he sort of 'helped' to go crazy?
A: He suffered a "breakdown."
Q: (A) Now, let's change a little bit. BRH sent me an e-mail where there was a discussion between Sarfatti and a Russian physicist who was working with Sakharov by the name of Ryazanov, at Moscow University. He says he can do derivation of quantum mechanics from electro dynamics with two signs of time. He is speaking about possible reversing of causality. On the other hand, he is saying that it is the sin of physicists that they believe in the power of mathematics. Part of what this Ryazanov is saying seems to correspond to what I think also. Does he really have a theory which explains quantum mechanics?
A: Yes, but he made an omission.
Q: (A) What omission?
A: Calculating the frequency constant.
Q: (A) Okay, I will try to get his paper. In looking for this Ryazanov on the web, I have found the pages of a Polish Medical Doctor who is making all kinds of funny experiments, including parapsychological, being, at the same time, director of the University Clinic. I had the idea that I should get in contact with him. Who is he? Can I have a clue?
A: Who is he?
Q: (A) His name is Brodziak. He is in contact with Sarfatti, Pitkannen, Deautsche, and so on. Should I become more active in these discussions, these mailing lists?
A: Sure, but you will need to separate the "wheat from the chaff."
Q: (A) Okay, I am done. (L) Okay, let me see if I can get a couple of these other questions in. I have this book called the "Curse of Cain," and it talks about the relationship between Monotheism and Violence, positing that Monotheism itself is the root of violence. She has a chapter on Covenants. She writes 'Collective Identity, which is a result of a covenant of Monotheism is explicitly narrated in the Bible as an invention, a radical break with Nature. A transcendent deity breaks into history with the demand that the people he constitutes obey the law he institutes, and first and foremost among those laws is, of course, that they pledge allegiance to him, and him alone, and that this is what makes them a unified people as opposed to the 'other,' as in all other people which leads to violence. In the Old Testament, vast numbers of 'other' people are obliterated, while in the New Testament, vast numbers are colonized and converted for the sake of such covenants." She also talks about the idea of the 'provisional' nature of a covenant, and that this means that it is conditional. Believe in me and obey me or else I will destroy you. That's all fine and good, and the chief thing that occurs to me is that this belief business in religions or whatever, constitutes a sort of 'permission,' if you will, to take the 'vengeful' action if the agreement is broken. The Hebrew phrase for 'he made a covenant,' is karat berit, or literally, he CUT a covenant. In the covenant with Abraham in genesis, animals are cut in two and a fire passes between them in a mysterious ritual. Then, there is the cutting of the flesh at circumcision, and the Sinai covenant where the laws were cut into stone. So, these covenants are apparently what constituted Israel as a nation. The entire foundational frame of Israel is framed by the severed pieces of animals, it seems. Why?
A: Confused principles.
Q: Book says: 'In ancient Near Eastern rituals, the cut made to the animal is symbolically made to the inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior." Is this an accurate representation?
A: Maybe for some.
Q: At the making of the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, there was a bunch of sacrificed animals, and Moses took the blood , dividing it in half, he cast one half on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it to the people, and they said 'we will observe all that Yahweh has decreed. We will obey.' And then Moses took the blood and cast it on the people saying 'this is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you containing all these rules.' What is this blood of the covenant?
A: Has to do with bloodline.
Q: So this symbolized the bloodline of the Jews?
A: No.
Q: What bloodline are we talking about here?
A: Aramaic/Aryan.
Q: Are you saying that the Jews are Aramaic/Aryan?
A: No. Jews are not bloodline categorizable, per se.
Q: When the person who was later represented as Jesus lived, was that, as Paul described it, a New Covenant of Blood?
A: No.
Q: Was any of this related to the Nordic Covenant?
A: In a parallel sense.
Q: Okay. Umm... It says then: 'We are heirs of a long tradition in which Monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of Judeo-Christian thought. Monotheism is entangled with particularism, and with the assertion that this god, and no other, must be worshipped. This particularism is so virulent that it reduces all other gods to mere idols, and is so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations. The danger of a universal Monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE truth; its system of knowledge, THE system of knowledge; its ethics, THE ethics; not because any other option must be rejected, but because there simply IS NO OTHER OPTION. They presuppose a kind of metaphysical scarcity, a kind of hoarding mentality, hoarding belief, hoarding identity, hoarding allegiance, because there is a finite supply of whatever, it must be contained in whole or part. It suggests limit and boundaries.' Well, aside from reminding me of the parable of the talents, she goes on to talk about how Monotheism is the chief thing at the root of violence in our culture. She makes a good case. Is this idea part of the Nordic Covenant?
A: No.
Q: Is the Nordic Covenant in any sense similar to any of the things I have read here?
A: It is a mystical thing, not related to theology in a direct sense.
Q: How long has the Nordic Covenant been in existence?
A: 5129 years.
Q: Is the Nordic Covenant made between humans and other humans, or between humans and higher density beings?
A: Mostly between humans and humans, but some of the other.
Q: Does this Nordic Covenant exist on the earth today in similar format as it did at its inception?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this Nordic Covenant the same as you have referred to as the Quorum?
A: No.
Q: Would you say that the Nordic Covenant and the Quorum are in opposition, or just different?
A: Segmented relationship.
Q: Is there any particular thing about this that I ought to ask at the moment that I am not going to discover in the course of my research? The mail group asked a few questions about this, so I thought I ought to approach the subject. Is the Nordic Covenant made between people who are blond and blue-eyed?
A: Not the central issue.
Q: What is the central issue of the Nordic Covenant?
A: Bloodline extends off the planet.
Q: Is this Nordic Covenant a group that is in place on the planet for the purpose of guarding or propagating a particular bloodline?
A: To guard secrets.
Q: What does this secret have to do with a bloodline?
A: You should be able to figure this one out!
Q: Are these people with this bloodline and with these secrets the same ones involved with the genetic engineering of new bodies for the Lizzies to occupy at the point of transition to 4th density?
A: No.
Q: Are these secrets negative to our civilization or race?
A: From your perspective, maybe.
Q: Do these bloodlines have to do with Nephilim?
A: A little.
Q: What secrets are they guarding?
A: Your origins; the nature of your being.
Q: So, this Nordic Covenant is that which wishes to maintain the darkness of our realm, the time loops, the replays, and all that sort of thing?
A: One of the players, yes.
Q: You also said that the Nordic Covenant was a duality, that it could be positive or negative. So, if that is the negative side of it, is the positive the same, or different?
A: Too complex for your current understanding.
Q: Is the 'buried treasure' of the Templars or Cathars, or whoever, manuscripts from the Alexandrian library telling about the true origin and nature of man?
A: Well if so, maybe that would explain the structure you live under.
Q: Society? The Universe? The EM grid? Any or all of the above? What structure do I live under?
A: Forced choices.
Q: Is that what is buried off the coast of Scotland, the Isle of Man, in that region?
A: No, at least not the whole puzzle.
Q: Am I at all correct in pinning this location down, so that I ought to work on the further project of getting some detailed maps to get even closer?
A: A piece is there.
Q: Is there also a piece in Rhineland proper, as in Germany or France?
A: Maybe...
Q: How many pieces are there? Seven? Seven Horseheads... ?
A: No more clues on that. Good night.
End of Session
Laura, Ark, Frank
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Zanea.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
{Personal discussion redacted.}
Q: (L) Okay, I have discovered that this author, Goodrich, thinks that the island of the grail castle was the Isle of Man. There are a huge number of the clues you have given on this grail quest that seem to converge in this area, including the coast of Scotland. There is a cave where Merlin is supposedly buried, four churches, the Isle of Man, the little islet of St. Patrick, the churches of St. Patrick and St. Germanus, or ruins of them, standing next to each other, and the church called "Candida Casa" in a meadow, or field, that was dedicated to St. Augustine; there is a place along the coast called 'Rhinn' and the northern part of Wales was formerly called 'Galles.' So, it is like all of these things converge to this area, and there is the consideration that King Clovis of the Franks was a contemporary of Arthur and there may have been blood connections. Am I on the right track with these churches in this area?
A: Maybe so, but you did not finish with the previous subject!
{Personal discussion of no benefit to others redacted.}
Q: (A) Why should we be more responsible for our children than for other people?
A: What do you mean?
Q: (A) Why do we worry so much about our children when they are grown; we spend so much energy on this; we lose sleep; but these are separate souls, so should we not practice to become immune to this worry? Why do we worry about our children?
A: Genetic/emotional/hormonal/instinctual/karmic interface is most intense there.
Q: Does it have to do with a pre-life agreement to interact in certain ways, to do certain things?
A: Partly. Souls chose you as a vehicle for primary learning regarding karmic lesson profile.
{…}
Q: Okay, I am done. (A) I was trying to put together things related to research on UFT, and the questions I have asked recently. After a time of being quite desperate, because I could not put these things together, I could finally see some dim light. So, I would like to ask. But, please do not reassure me if what I think is wrong... just tell me it is wrong, and I will look for something else. I came up with the idea that we should model our space time on a kind of a surface embedded in a higher dimensional flat space. This would account for several things that you have told us. At some point you said the following: 'Old makes new again,' which suggested that we should come back to what Einstein was thinking, and then you said 'equilateral versus hypotenuse.' I didn't have a clue, but then I got an idea that it is related to different kinds of tensors with three indices, rather than to geometrical features. Is this guess correct?
A: Partly, but geometric figures provide a third density guide for visualizations of field concepts.
Q: (A) Hmmm....
A: Pyramids inverted upon one another.
Q: (A) Where to put these pyramids?
A: Hexagonal representation of flat plane...
Q: (A) What is hexagonal representation?
A: What does a hexagon look like when converted to three dimensional representation?
Q: (L) Well, a 'flat pyramid' is a triangle, and a triangle has three points, and two triangles inverted becomes a sort of Star of David, and that has six points and is a sort of hexagon... (L) Well, this hexagon business... two dimensional inverted pyramids make a Star of David. But, what if these pyramids were really tetrahedrons? They LOOK like a hexagon in a plane, but in 3 dimensions... (A) They are octohedrons... Octonions... hmmmm....
A: Vortices... this is what your "wormhole" would look like.
Q: (A) Now, we have a problem here, because you speak in terms of features, geometrical features, and I would like to convert this to equations which...
A: Okay, what is the problem?
Q: (A) I want to describe gravity, and to describe gravity I must have some geometrical quantity which describes this gravity, so my idea is that gravitational field is described by the bending of our space time in a higher dimensional flat space... A: Yes...
Q: And that this bending would describe both gravity and electromagnetism.
A: Yes...
Q: (A) In all this I do not see a place at all for tetrahedrons. What do they have to do with a bent surface?
A: Maybe you do not see yet.
Q: (A) But, still I want to understand what was all this talk about tetrahedrons. So, I thought about tetrahedrons that I have worked with and met in my research. There were several occasions. First, there are tetrahedrons which we need if you build a continuous theory of completely discrete elements. Then we do the triangulation of the surface, or we need tetrahedrons to triangulate space, so let me call it Place One. Place Two: tetrahedrons I understood as symbols because tetrahedrons have three edges from each vertex, so I thought this three should represent third order differential equations. Place Three: I use tetrahedrons for describing magnetic monopoles, but they were not necessary, and I have no other way to put tetrahedrons into the idea to bend geometry. If things are fluffy, what are tetrahedrons doing there? I have no clue at all! So, I want to ask about a possibility of describing different densities. It came to my mind that perhaps Einstein, when you spoke about variable physicality, that Einstein was afraid when he understood that in his work. I thought about this and I think that Einstein determined that the future must be determined from the past and present, and when he found that he had a theory where the future was open, he dismissed it and was afraid. Is this a good guess that variable physicality, mathematically, means a theory where there is a freedom of choosing the future when past and present are given?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Is it related to the fact that we should use higher order differential equations, not second order?
A: Yes. Einstein found that not only is the future open, but also the present and the past. Talk about scary!!
Q: (A) All you have said so far points to an idea by a Swiss guy named Armand Wyler. This Wyler found a way to compute from geometry so-called Fine Structure Constant, which is a number and can be found experimentally. Then, of course, he was invited to Princeton to explain how he did it, and apparently he failed to explain himself, and he ended in an asylum for the mentally deranged. The question is: if I follow his way of thinking, can I succeed in deriving and understanding the nature of this Fine Structure Constant?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Well, if I do it, should I keep it a secret so that I won't end up in an asylum?
A: The problem with Wyler was with the audience, not the speaker.
Q: (A) What does that mean? (L) I guess it means that the people he was talking to couldn't grasp it, not that he couldn't explain it. Did he really lose his mind, or was he sort of 'helped' to go crazy?
A: He suffered a "breakdown."
Q: (A) Now, let's change a little bit. BRH sent me an e-mail where there was a discussion between Sarfatti and a Russian physicist who was working with Sakharov by the name of Ryazanov, at Moscow University. He says he can do derivation of quantum mechanics from electro dynamics with two signs of time. He is speaking about possible reversing of causality. On the other hand, he is saying that it is the sin of physicists that they believe in the power of mathematics. Part of what this Ryazanov is saying seems to correspond to what I think also. Does he really have a theory which explains quantum mechanics?
A: Yes, but he made an omission.
Q: (A) What omission?
A: Calculating the frequency constant.
Q: (A) Okay, I will try to get his paper. In looking for this Ryazanov on the web, I have found the pages of a Polish Medical Doctor who is making all kinds of funny experiments, including parapsychological, being, at the same time, director of the University Clinic. I had the idea that I should get in contact with him. Who is he? Can I have a clue?
A: Who is he?
Q: (A) His name is Brodziak. He is in contact with Sarfatti, Pitkannen, Deautsche, and so on. Should I become more active in these discussions, these mailing lists?
A: Sure, but you will need to separate the "wheat from the chaff."
Q: (A) Okay, I am done. (L) Okay, let me see if I can get a couple of these other questions in. I have this book called the "Curse of Cain," and it talks about the relationship between Monotheism and Violence, positing that Monotheism itself is the root of violence. She has a chapter on Covenants. She writes 'Collective Identity, which is a result of a covenant of Monotheism is explicitly narrated in the Bible as an invention, a radical break with Nature. A transcendent deity breaks into history with the demand that the people he constitutes obey the law he institutes, and first and foremost among those laws is, of course, that they pledge allegiance to him, and him alone, and that this is what makes them a unified people as opposed to the 'other,' as in all other people which leads to violence. In the Old Testament, vast numbers of 'other' people are obliterated, while in the New Testament, vast numbers are colonized and converted for the sake of such covenants." She also talks about the idea of the 'provisional' nature of a covenant, and that this means that it is conditional. Believe in me and obey me or else I will destroy you. That's all fine and good, and the chief thing that occurs to me is that this belief business in religions or whatever, constitutes a sort of 'permission,' if you will, to take the 'vengeful' action if the agreement is broken. The Hebrew phrase for 'he made a covenant,' is karat berit, or literally, he CUT a covenant. In the covenant with Abraham in genesis, animals are cut in two and a fire passes between them in a mysterious ritual. Then, there is the cutting of the flesh at circumcision, and the Sinai covenant where the laws were cut into stone. So, these covenants are apparently what constituted Israel as a nation. The entire foundational frame of Israel is framed by the severed pieces of animals, it seems. Why?
A: Confused principles.
Q: Book says: 'In ancient Near Eastern rituals, the cut made to the animal is symbolically made to the inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior." Is this an accurate representation?
A: Maybe for some.
Q: At the making of the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, there was a bunch of sacrificed animals, and Moses took the blood , dividing it in half, he cast one half on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it to the people, and they said 'we will observe all that Yahweh has decreed. We will obey.' And then Moses took the blood and cast it on the people saying 'this is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you containing all these rules.' What is this blood of the covenant?
A: Has to do with bloodline.
Q: So this symbolized the bloodline of the Jews?
A: No.
Q: What bloodline are we talking about here?
A: Aramaic/Aryan.
Q: Are you saying that the Jews are Aramaic/Aryan?
A: No. Jews are not bloodline categorizable, per se.
Q: When the person who was later represented as Jesus lived, was that, as Paul described it, a New Covenant of Blood?
A: No.
Q: Was any of this related to the Nordic Covenant?
A: In a parallel sense.
Q: Okay. Umm... It says then: 'We are heirs of a long tradition in which Monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of Judeo-Christian thought. Monotheism is entangled with particularism, and with the assertion that this god, and no other, must be worshipped. This particularism is so virulent that it reduces all other gods to mere idols, and is so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations. The danger of a universal Monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE truth; its system of knowledge, THE system of knowledge; its ethics, THE ethics; not because any other option must be rejected, but because there simply IS NO OTHER OPTION. They presuppose a kind of metaphysical scarcity, a kind of hoarding mentality, hoarding belief, hoarding identity, hoarding allegiance, because there is a finite supply of whatever, it must be contained in whole or part. It suggests limit and boundaries.' Well, aside from reminding me of the parable of the talents, she goes on to talk about how Monotheism is the chief thing at the root of violence in our culture. She makes a good case. Is this idea part of the Nordic Covenant?
A: No.
Q: Is the Nordic Covenant in any sense similar to any of the things I have read here?
A: It is a mystical thing, not related to theology in a direct sense.
Q: How long has the Nordic Covenant been in existence?
A: 5129 years.
Q: Is the Nordic Covenant made between humans and other humans, or between humans and higher density beings?
A: Mostly between humans and humans, but some of the other.
Q: Does this Nordic Covenant exist on the earth today in similar format as it did at its inception?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this Nordic Covenant the same as you have referred to as the Quorum?
A: No.
Q: Would you say that the Nordic Covenant and the Quorum are in opposition, or just different?
A: Segmented relationship.
Q: Is there any particular thing about this that I ought to ask at the moment that I am not going to discover in the course of my research? The mail group asked a few questions about this, so I thought I ought to approach the subject. Is the Nordic Covenant made between people who are blond and blue-eyed?
A: Not the central issue.
Q: What is the central issue of the Nordic Covenant?
A: Bloodline extends off the planet.
Q: Is this Nordic Covenant a group that is in place on the planet for the purpose of guarding or propagating a particular bloodline?
A: To guard secrets.
Q: What does this secret have to do with a bloodline?
A: You should be able to figure this one out!
Q: Are these people with this bloodline and with these secrets the same ones involved with the genetic engineering of new bodies for the Lizzies to occupy at the point of transition to 4th density?
A: No.
Q: Are these secrets negative to our civilization or race?
A: From your perspective, maybe.
Q: Do these bloodlines have to do with Nephilim?
A: A little.
Q: What secrets are they guarding?
A: Your origins; the nature of your being.
Q: So, this Nordic Covenant is that which wishes to maintain the darkness of our realm, the time loops, the replays, and all that sort of thing?
A: One of the players, yes.
Q: You also said that the Nordic Covenant was a duality, that it could be positive or negative. So, if that is the negative side of it, is the positive the same, or different?
A: Too complex for your current understanding.
Q: Is the 'buried treasure' of the Templars or Cathars, or whoever, manuscripts from the Alexandrian library telling about the true origin and nature of man?
A: Well if so, maybe that would explain the structure you live under.
Q: Society? The Universe? The EM grid? Any or all of the above? What structure do I live under?
A: Forced choices.
Q: Is that what is buried off the coast of Scotland, the Isle of Man, in that region?
A: No, at least not the whole puzzle.
Q: Am I at all correct in pinning this location down, so that I ought to work on the further project of getting some detailed maps to get even closer?
A: A piece is there.
Q: Is there also a piece in Rhineland proper, as in Germany or France?
A: Maybe...
Q: How many pieces are there? Seven? Seven Horseheads... ?
A: No more clues on that. Good night.
End of Session
Last edited by a moderator:
