Session 27 April 2024

[Global Warning]

I clicked 'post reply' while I was going to quote another thing. Couldn't you allow editing the posts at least for few minutes after posting? I've also had some random Internet failure. What I was going to quote:

Q: (irjO) The C's mentioned that lizard beings could live among us in the past because the cosmic environment was different back then. They also mentioned that they built Angkor Wat around 3100 years ago. When was the last time/year in our known timeline when they were present among people?

A: 2300 BC

I don't think we've heard a lot about lizards. It would only be mentioned by some conspiracy theorists and freaks in weird YouTube videos. The subject was only explored seriously here, I believe. I don't recall any of the most famous religions talking about lizards (and the Cassiopaeans said that lizards were behind virtually all the revelations, so religions are a smoke screen for themselves). Maybe some Ancient religions, by which I mean those that were wiped out by Europeans during their geographical discoveries, talked about it more often, but the knowledge has been lost. The only lizards you hear about apart from crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, geckos, etc. are dinosaurs. Sometimes I wonder to what extent prehistoric times looked like we think in reality, if it is another bluff. Why some would survive and other would not is hard to say, but I guess there are theories on that. Like the Ice Age, lack of food, the impact itself. If anything, maybe humans killed off the rest. The question is, what other than dinosaurs lived in the times of dinosaurs? How many dinosaurs were there, really? I once dreamed about lizards. They looked a little different than I would have imagined. The size of grays, large and round eyes, more like aquatic animals. In general, this is just my digression that, considering creatures that have been interacting with the earth and people for centuries, lizards are quite little known and have now entered the public consciousness mainly as a meme, just like fourth density (a synonym for something out of this world, absurdity, etc.)

 

[moyal]

One of Miles Mathis' takes on orchestrations of fiascos:
-> Beer Hall Putsch

 

[Atomas]

Thank you for the session.
I find it a bit depressing that we have so many replaced key individuals. 13% of social media influences and 20% overall. Who are with their own agenda and consciousness not necessarily related to the Earth thing and lessons learned.
Another thing regarding weird beings appearing in specific locations which has some concentration of people knowing strange tales, old stories about weird beings. And it looks like consciousness of these people acts as a magnet for this weird beings of events to materialize. Well well well. Others may use it as warning and maybe try to learn something from this

 

[Ryan]

You certainly have other skills that I don't have and that Ark doesn't have either. On the other hand, I wonder, more and more, whether we really need to resort to very complicated mathematical or physical concepts to answer all these questions.​

Whatever slight skills I have that Ark doesn't probably aren't very important. Regarding conceptualisation, I think that it may be possible to see the essence of certain concepts intuitively (eg. gravity makes the apple fall from the tree), but a more complete understanding likely requires mathematical description (gravity causes the apple to accelerate towards the ground at g = F/m). Unfortunately it took me nearly four decades to appreciate that maths could go beyond purely technical utility and have philosophical applications, so I'm having to play 'catch up' a bit!

Penrose has an objective collapse interpretation; GRW and Ark's EEQT are also objective collapse interpretations. Ark is the only one with an algebra structure connecting classical and quantum so it's kind of the best for relating to the rest of physics.

Thanks; Ark's work is stratospherically above my head at the moment, but I'm aiming to understand how it (and any other areas of QT) relates to the broad cosmology the C's have provided. I'm starting with Planck.

GRW kind of has a good empirically derived target and Penrose has a formula relating decoherence time to the inverse of gravitational self-energy. The Cs did relate consciousness in place of time to the inverse of gravity and Penrose's formula does seem to match large number of particles time scales for consciousness better than the GRW small number of particles empirical data.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds with Penrose's work at this point, however unifying unstable gravity waves with EEQT seems to be somehow important. I was also thinking about the De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation and I just noticed Ark mentioned something about this in his EEQT FAQ:

EEQT: FAQ

EEQT: FAQ

www.arkadiusz-jadczyk.org

7. [Questioner:]In EEQT, quantum mechanics is supplemented by a "classical system" (an apparatus?) given by an Abelian algebra of observables that also commute with all quantum observables. The spectrum of this algebra corresponds precisely to the possible values of the classical variables. Now in fact, any (hidden) variables in addition to the wave function could also be similarly regarded as corresponding to the spectrum of the center of an algebra of observables containing the quantum algebra.

This is not true. Hidden variable theories of Bohm and of Bell are incompatible with linearity. They can not be formulated in algebraic terms at all. The statement that their hidden variables could be considered as corresponding to the spectrum of the center of an algebra of observables containing the quantum algebra is incorrect. It is based on misconception. EEQT is compatible with linearity. There is a reflection of this fact in the following: In hidden variable theories there is NO back action of classical variables on the wave function. In EEQT there is such an action. Linearity imposes the need for such a reciprocical action. [..]

10. [Questioner:]He then goes on to suggest two ways to overcome this difficulty: by not limiting X to macroscopic variables one arrives at Bohm's theory and by introducing a suitable microscopic collapse mechanism at GRW (as the simplest possibility).

This is what Bell knew at the time of writing his papers. EEQT did not exist at this time. There are certainly more options available. EEQT shows that there are such options. But, as stated, EEQT is not yet a complete theory. It is semi-phenomenological. Its aim is to find the ultimate classical parameters without stating a-priori restrictions on their nature. They may prove to be related to gravity a'la GRW and Penrose; they can be related to consciousness a'la Stapp and Penrose-Hameroff; they can be related to new kind of fields that are yet to be discovered. John Bell was open minded. EEQT is open-minded as well.

I haven't yet looked into what Ark is referencing here via Stapp and Penrose-Hameroff. Step by step seems the most prudent way to explore.

 

[Angchop]

Great session, thank you. Things seem to be heating up. I have noticed that people are very tense/angry these days …feels like something is definitely coming. Trying to stay positive and Remember “it’s not where you are, but who you are and what you see.”

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thank you for the session.
I find it a bit depressing that we have so many replaced key individuals. 13% of social media influences and 20% overall. Who are with their own agenda and consciousness not necessarily related to the Earth thing and lessons learned.

The way I interpreted that statistic is that 13% of influencer "key personnel" are replaced, not 13% of all influencers. We would need to ask how many influencers there are, and how many of those influencers are considered "key personnel" to be able to figure out a total percentage of influencers.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

.Approaching infinity said: Reply 142
Renato Vesco and David Hatcher Childress: Artificial ovnis (1994)
---------------------------------------
Among the bibliography you wrote, the name “artificial ovnis” caught my attention.
Have you read that book?

Nope, but if you follow the link, it's available online.

 

[Atomas]

The way I interpreted that statistic is that 13% of influencer "key personnel" are replaced, not 13% of all influencers. We would need to ask how many influencers there are, and how many of those influencers are considered "key personnel" to be able to figure out a total percentage of influencers.

True. I should had been more precise in wording. Thank you for clarifying this

 

[BHelmet]

“A: A combination. There has long been survival of Nazi ideology in various places. It has been encouraged by similar forces in the USA and Israel”

This sums it up. It’s about the ideology, and mindset. When “Nazi” is thought of, there can be a tendency to think of the stereotypes that have been imprinted on the West that include both derision and glamorization by Hollywood. Then there is the philosophical and doctrinal underpinnings vs the reality on the ground.

We will lead and you will follow; with an implied threat if there is any deviation

 

[Cleo]

Thank you all for this session!

Q: (L) Did we ask about the ship that hit the Francis Scott Key Bridge?

(Niall) No.

(A Jay) Was the steering of the ship into the Francis Scott Key Bridge deliberate and premeditated?

A: No

Q: (A Jay) If not, what caused the power failure of the ship?

A: Power failure had nothing to do with impact. Was side effect of bleedthrough of 4D energies.

Q: (Niall) That was your idea.

(L) I already thought about that. Why don't you just ask me? I'd have told you! I mean, it's like they said they described in - what was it? New Mexico, where you're driving and it looks like the road is straight, but it's really curving, or it's curving and it's really straight.

(Joe) Right. So, the driver, the captain, or whatever, just kind of, like, got confuddled about where he was going.

(L) And I bet he's still freaking out! He was sure he was going in the right direction.

(Joe) So, there were some symbolic aspects to it. It was the Francis Scott Key bridge.

(L) Were there symbolic aspects to it?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) And is that because of the 4D energies that there's some information involved in it?

A: Yes

This ship's power had gone due to bleed through and lost control and hit the bridge. Other day, while driving, I wondered are there any way we can know if there is is a bleed through ahead. May be having a compass in the car as this lady mentioned in this video.

I've wondered about something similar. I imagine a compass as well as a watch would suddenly stop working in such a scenario. Maybe the car's instrument panel would also start to go haywire?

I found the part in the session about the horses and Big Ben really interesting as well, because the same day that happened in April, I noticed a clock at my work had stopped. It was my co-worker who first noticed it and tried to re-set it to the correct time. Hours later it was again showing the wrong time (I think it was off by more than an hour). They took the clock off the wall again and we just left it off till we could get a battery for it which we were able to get the next day.

 

[SOTTREADER]

“A: A combination. There has long been survival of Nazi ideology in various places. It has been encouraged by similar forces in the USA and Israel”

This sums it up. It’s about the ideology, and mindset. When “Nazi” is thought of, there can be a tendency to think of the stereotypes that have been imprinted on the West that include both derision and glamorization by Hollywood. Then there is the philosophical and doctrinal underpinnings vs the reality on the ground.

We will lead and you will follow; with an implied threat if there is any deviation

What are the stereotypes?

 

[John G]

Ark's work is stratospherically above my head at the moment, but I'm aiming to understand how it (and any other areas of QT) relates to the broad cosmology the C's have provided. I'm starting with Planck.

Best we can do with respect to Ark's work is to also understand the structure in broad terms.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds with Penrose's work at this point, however unifying unstable gravity waves with EEQT seems to be somehow important. I was also thinking about the De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation and I just noticed Ark mentioned something about this in his EEQT FAQ:

Now in fact, any (hidden) variables in addition to the wave function could also be similarly regarded as corresponding to the spectrum of the center of an algebra of observables containing the quantum algebra.

This is not true. Hidden variable theories of Bohm and of Bell are incompatible with linearity. They can not be formulated in algebraic terms at all.

If unstable gravity waves originate at 7th density then they might relate to what Ark called a mother algebra. Nice thing about a mother algebra is you don't have to actually do the algebra, it kind of just houses other thankfully smaller but still complicated algebras that Ark does have to do things with like getting a degenerate metric with frequency as the 4th dimension.

Like Penrose and GRW, there isn't an algebra structure for Bohm either. I knew about Ark's work with algebra for about 8 years before I knew about the Cs and it was still about that much time after finding out about the Cs when I finally had a picture of what the center of an algebra is. So yes...

I haven't yet looked into what Ark is referencing here via Stapp and Penrose-Hameroff. Step by step seems the most prudent way to explore.

So yes step by step is not only good but kind of the only way. Hameroff works at our local university and I once saw him (and Penrose and Stapp) at a quantum consciousness conference here. Quantum consciousness would be the decoherence of many particles so Penrose can be correct for many particles and consciousness but GRW might be correct for small numbers of particles (it would kick in before Penrose's equation so Penrose wouldn't be wrong just not needed for small numbers).

EEQT could handle both and have a classical center algebra structure with the non-center algebra structure handling quantum operators. EEQT has quantum and classical structures effecting each other allowing free will unlike Bohm where the pilot wave is set and effects the classical reality deterministically. EEQT could also allow many-worlds-like parallel realities with its algebra. You can see why there are competing ideas, you kind of need the general ideas of multiple ones.

 

[lindrie]

Thank you for the session, I wasnt expecting to see one just yet so its a nice surprise. Make sure you take all the "time" you all need to recharge!

 

[iamthatis]

I think you gotta look it as fractal consciousness, since time doesn’t really exist, it means that your/our soul is not just you/us but part of a big consciousness unit that is also learning or gathering information in other realities and densities at the same “time”, the best example would be the Cs themselves. Aren’t they Laura and others “in the future” communicating simultaneously with they/us “in the past”? It would be same consciousness but on different realities.

So we have this idea about fractal consciousness:

Q: (Joe) Does everybody have a 5D self?

A: Yes. Those with souls.

Q: (Joe) Do people with souls have 2D selves?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) And 1D selves?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) So is it kind of like fractal consciousness?

A: Yes

But we also have another idea, that with underground bases, there is a 'density elevator'.

Q: (T) There are no bases within the boundaries of the Continental U.S.? (L) No, they are in other dimensions and densities, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) They can be entered through entranceways within the United States and other places within the world?

A: Transdensity.

Q: (L) OK, transdensity points...

A: No. Bases are.

Q: (L) Bases are transdensity. (T) So the bases are transdensity, in other words they exist throughout the densities in the same location. No, no, that won't be right... (L) they exist in a trans-density state. (T) So they exist in third...

A: Yes.

Q: (T) They exist in third, fourth, whatever...all at the same time. (L) Maybe they could come in to our density when necessary and then go out of our density when necessary.

A: No.

Q: (L) They are in another density.

A: No.

Q: (L) They are in another dimension. (T) They are in all densities...

A: Trans.

Q: (L) They transit at all densities?

A: Start at three.

Q: (L) They start at three... (T) They go through four, five is not the density they can go into, so they go through six...

A: Assume.

Q: (L) Assume; you're assuming... (T) No, I'm asking, they start at three, you say; where do they go from there?

A: To five.

Q: (L) Three to five. (T) They cover three, four and five?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Why do they cover five? You've said that five is the level of contemplation... (L) Why not? That makes sense, to have one there, too.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) They can take them through there. They work there. (T) Well, I need to understand this, they've said different things about the fifth density, in different sessions. OK,

A: No.

Q: (L) I'll tell you, hold on. One of the things that came through: it was the session when I was asking questions about [my son's] experiences under hypnosis, so it was back fairly early on. And I asked a series of questions about what he perceived. Now, he had an alien abduction experience that he described in another lifetime, seemingly. He described what amounted to having this screen thing put over his face, and the red dots, and the programming and the beings in the silver robes standing around, and then being shunted through this tunnel, and finding himself in this dark space where there were all these black-hole things all around him. I asked, was this an alien abduction in another lifetime and they said no, it was a fifth density life review. I said, are some of these beings we perceive as aliens, and some of these experiences we perceive as alien abductions, actually events or experiences on fifth density? And they said yes.

(J) Life review... that's real important.

(L) Right. So what they're saying is, and when they're talking about taking souls on the battlefield, and so forth, obviously we have fifth density "alien" and they've said that the term is used loosely. I mean, we might perceive them as alien, but they were fifth density workers, so to speak. That was their job, to do whatever it was they did, or they perceived it as their job. So that, to have these bases transit the densities up through fifth, would make perfect sense because of the kind of work they're doing. Is that...

A: There is so much extremely vital stuff about this subject, that it would be wise to stay with it until completion.

Q: (T) We plan on staying with it, we're trying to understand this...

(L) You remember when my brother was here, they kept wanting us to come back to the subject of the bases. And we didn't, we wandered off.

(T) Our problem is, we wander a lot of the time. We're worse than Carl Sagan as a group here. We wander off on tangent ideas, and go from one thing to the next. We never stay on a subject. OK, the bases are trans-density bases; they go from the third density to the fifth; they exist in the third, fourth and fifth density all at the same time, is this correct so far?

A: Close.

Q: (T) Now, when a being, a soul, whatever, is in the base, do they exist in all three densities at the same time?

A: No.

Okay, so there is fractal consciousness, but they don't exist in all densities at the same time. Or maybe they do and do not.

With this term fractal consciousness, I was picturing a soul inhabiting numerous densities at once. But maybe that's not the case? What does the above bolded section mean in the context of fractal consciousness?

One thing it means is that I don't really know what fractal consciousness means.

Q: (L) Hold on, I've got an idea...

A: When you are in a skyscraper, do you exist on all floors at the same time?

Q: (J) No, but you have got to know where the elevator is! (L) Is there something like an elevator that can move you, if you're in these locations, from one density to another, and experience these bases, these trans-density bases, at different levels?

A: It is an elevator!

Q: (L) OK, so these bases are points... it IS an elevator, so these bases may be places that if you are taken to them, are in them, that through these portals, or trans-density bases, you are thereby able to transit the densities?

A: You are able anyway.

Q: (L) OK, but are these specific locations... OK, it is an elevator... (T) Well, not an elevator as we perceive an elevator... (J) Conceptually, yes. It's a conveyance, it's a method.

A: No.

Q: (T) No, that it isn't an elevator as we perceive it? (L) Is it an elevator for...

A: Literally.

Q: (L) It is literally an elevator?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So you go there to get on to go to different densities?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) So, it is that easy?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So you go to these bases, to go to different densities...

A: Although, it is possible to enter 4th and 5th in other ways too!

Q: (L) OK, are these beings, these other density beings, creating and utilizing these bases for mass movement of beings or artifacts, from one density to another? Is that what they're doing here?

A: No. They live on 4th, so they construct 4th density bases.

Q: (L) I'm getting it... So, the fourth density beings construct fourth density bases. These fourth density bases then somehow interface with third density in a certain point in space-time, and they then influence third density beings to build third density bases at this interface point, and through these interface points they are able to move back and forth between densities. Is this getting close to the idea?

A: The only ones who need to use this approach are 3rd D.

To my puny human brain, this implies we live on the 3rd floor plane of reality. There is an elevator in these bases, and when we get on the elevator, we can enter 4D.

The discussion above - is it specific to trans-density bases only? When someone enters a 4D base from 3D, do we assume that there isn't a bifurcation of the self? In other words, it's not the case that the self is still in 3D while it is also in 4D? I think that's what they're saying. The self is only in 4D while in 4D. But with a connection to 5D (at all times).

Anyways, maybe I'd better stop there before I confuse myself any further.

 

[Wandering Star]

In other words, it's not the case that the self is still in 3D while it is also in 4D?

Your self right now is in 1D, in 2D and at the same time in 3D. That is the limit of our environment.

In the bases you enter an elevator in a 3D electromagnetic environment and literally go down to another floor with a 4D electromagnetic environment, which you are either fit to be in or you quickly travel to 5D.

I think it's something like that.