Session 29 July 2023

Regarding ‘what happened to the real plague’, I brought it up in the thread from the session dated March 2020 when Covid blew up. This is the reference:
Q: (L) Is it likely that there is going to be at some point a REAL plague or pandemic?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) In the next 2 months?

A: No

Q: (Andromeda) In the next 2 years?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Something like the Black Death would really do a number on the elite, wouldn't it?

(Chu) But it's likely that after this, people are going to think that everything is going back to normal and their systems will be very weak. And then the real deal hits.

A: No

Q: (Artemis) Are people being prepared to deal with the plague?

A: Yes

Q: (Artemis) SOME people!
So I was wondering what had happened and why as it is so unusual for the C’s to affirm such a precise time frame question.
So as we are past three years and counting. Does anyone think the work of whole group was what changed the likelihood of the above mentioned real
plague outcome?
And if we did what else can we effect or have effected?
This is going back to the latest session:
(Adobe) Okay. On that question, they often answer, and I'm thinking specifically right now of... It was asked, "is the next real pandemic possibly gonna happen in two months?" The answer was no. "Is it going to happen within two years?" "Yes." And two years passed, so somebody brought it up, and there is regularly something like that, where the Cs will answer with a time reference that we understand (like "within two years") and then, it doesn't happen. So if they know our time reference, why would they even answer that? Why wouldn't they just allude from it and say, you know, wait and see? But they say, like that last time, "within two years", and it doesn't happen within two years. I'm kind of left with "wait for the other shoe to drop." Is there something we should be learning here?

(L) Well, I don't know which specific reference you're talking about. Do you, Niall?

(Niall) Yes. We asked about the likelihood of a plague, in the sense of the Black Death. And it was sometime in the mid-teens, they said "in 18 months to two years" or something like that. Well, there has not been a Black Death in that time period.

(L) Right. I don't know! Okay. What's the answer to that?

A: Reality is open and plans change. Sometimes we give answers to prevent calamity. The PTB would not allow such a prediction to manifest as it would draw positive attention to this source and they wish to avoid that at all costs. In the case of the COVID fake pandemic it was already in motion and major plans were in place.

Q: (L) So you're saying that sometimes you tell us some things just to prevent it from happening, because you know they won't let it happen if you say it?

A: Yes

Q: (Andromeda) There have been some things that they've said that have happened in the timeframe too, right?

(L) Yeah, there have been.

(Joe) There have been cases in the internet era that got a lot of attention when someone... There haven't been many, but there have been a few over the past 20 years... where someone predicted something. It wasn't like a major event, a plane crash or so something like that. Someone predicted and it got a lot of traction on the internet after the fact. They used a timestamp and they showed that some person had actually predicted some kind of an event, you know? So I think it's true that that would be something they'd want to avoid, you know?

(L) Well, they've also said... remember that time when they said that the PTB, you know, they change plans and change everything around just to fool and throw people off.

(Joe) Yeah. They have an eye on... There's a lot of people, especially now, watching what's going on and trying to kind of predict and talk about what is actually going on, what's behind the scenes, what the plan is, for example, global warming scam, and how they're going to try and kill everybody.... Jordan Peterson is basically talking about that, their plan is to basically starve the entire population, and kill off half of them. You know what I mean? So, when you have that level of exposure on that kind of a plan, it's understandable that they would want to divert that. So there is a feedback from the population, at least the part of the population that's half aware and watching, and trying to figure things out. That's a feedback that the powers that be are getting and they're watching that, they're paying attention to that. And if a certain idea gains some traction, a certain idea as a prediction that is actually part of their plans, they're probably going to change those plans because they don't want to validate anything that anybody has said in terms of prediction. Because most of the people predicting things these days are saying that these people are up to no good. They're nefarious, they're evil powers that be, they're doing this and that, and they don't ever want to give any credence to that.

(L) I think that's one of the reasons why the Cs are very reluctant to give timeframes, unless it's for a definite reason.

(Joe) I'm not saying this to be facetious, but Adobe, pick one of your family members or a friend, and predict what they're going to do tomorrow in the details. Where they're going to go, what time do they get up, when they're gonna go to their work, when they're coming home, you know, in broad strokes, but being fairly specific. I'm just saying that because it's obviously... it's changeable as much as you know someone's agenda...

(Andromeda) About probability and possibilities and all of that stuff...

(Joe) There are so many different things can come into play that can just divert someone's usual course.

(L) We don't have a fixed future except that broad general ideas and things, and repeating cycles are there. But I don't think you can very often... until just before the event, when the realities have converged, and then things are more or less set in stone, and then you can predict.

(Joe) Yeah, we can never really predict.

(L) And it's like... in a sense it's like playing dice, if you have a bunch of different people making predictions about something and everybody is making a different prediction, one of them is going to be right.

(Joe) The Cs have given a general trajectory for the future.

(L) Yeah.

(Joe) But in terms of the details and specifics of when certain events happen...You know, specific events like COVID or a pandemic, or a major volcano or the descent of America into civil war, or any number of these things. I mean, you can't lock that down, you know? Because it's a dynamic situation.

(L) Well, I think that there is another thing about it, and that is that if they make predictions... I don't know how to say this...

(Pierre) In some cases it's a breach of free will.

(L) Yeah. It violates free will. Well, look at what they did about the COVID thing. I mean, on the end of January 31st, 2019... The Cs talked about chills and all that kind of stuff. They didn't say that there was going to be a fixed.... They gave, you know, "you're gonna get chills", and all these kind of things. All of which were pretty exact descriptions of what this thing was that was coming.

(Andromeda) Yeah. In retrospect you can look back and say, that was it.

(L) Yeah, but we couldn't tell in advance. So, a lot of what they give us is along that line. Clues about things like that.

(Niall) Yeah. I think they actually said that in December, on New Year's Eve.

(Joe) Yeah, in December.

(L) It was December 31st, wasn't it?

(Joe) And that had already begun. That was locked in. That was an event that was going to happen. And they're not going to tell us, "Listen, here is what is going to happen over the next two years. They're gonna lock down, they're gonna kill people off..."

(Gaby) There were already COVID cases by December.

(Joe) They weren't going to tell us all the details of what was going on because...

(Andromeda) ...because those can change as well.

(Joe) Well no, that's a learning experience.

(Andromeda) Yeah, as well.

(Joe) That would be a violation of your...

(L) Free will learning directive.

(Niall) Well, what is important in what they're saying is that that is a relatively safe learning experience. But they did forestall, it seems, an actual plague event. Because that is a learning experience they didn't want us to go through. Not yet. Is that all right? Years earlier.
 
I agree with the discussions of the “time-stamp” question. And I think “maybe” my points were misunderstood. I was not questioning the validity of the C’s communication or in any way looking for, or wanting time-stamps.

One of the things I’ve’ learned with the C’s and other channeled communications is that putting a time or date to future events is a slippery slope and almost always becomes incorrect. The C’s know that, and they have taught us that. So, when on occasion a time-stamp appears, I generally say that’s dodgy “let’s wait and see”. (Which is what the C’s often say.)

That’s what I did with the “a real plague will come within 2 years.” No biggie. I just waited and watched. It didn’t happen…no surprise there. And that started me thinking, is there something going on behind the scene here? It is uncharacteristic of the C’s to time stamp future forecasts. Is there a lesson or knowledge to gain from this. Maybe the C’s can help?

The C’s did understand my point, and there was something there. So, it was not noise, but…assistance?

A couple of after-thoughts from their answer. (1) I’ve often thought: give sott.net all the exposure you like, but keep the forum under the radar for the obvious reasons. (2) I’m trying to rap my mind around the amount of influence we may actually have with the present Geo-political world. This whole grounding of the FRV seems to be further reaching than I thought.

In reference to our June session, this week I’ll be finishing off one month with the mushroom supplements, and no super powers yet. In fact I haven’t noticed anything. Has anyone else been trying the supplements, and have something to report?

Thanks everyone!
I had been wondering the same sorts of things Adobe so appreciated you posing the question.
 
Thanks a lot for that incredible session!

With regard to announcing plans:

Q: (IrjO) So it is true, the saying that says: "The one who keeps his secret; gets his desire,” meaning if you tell your plans, most likely they won't become a reality?

A: Yes!

I remembered a thread I started years ago about my observation that anticipation might reduce the probability of that which is anticipated actually happening. There are lots of fine points though, some of which are discussed in some excellent posts on that thread, such as


 
(IrjO) The majority of ancient megalithic structures around the world have little nubs on random pieces of rocks that compose the overall structures. Nobody can find a concrete answer to the why of these nubs. What was the purpose of those nubs? Or did it have any importance to ancient buildings?

A: The stones were surfaced by a facade.

As a context this is what I was referring to:

1690913273067.jpeg
 
Thank you for this wonderful session. Frightening and laughs at the same time.😁

I wonder if these undergounders are there managing the PTB to fix their mistakes they made when their not discreet enough with their behavior or eficient enough in their actions, etc, so to speak.
 
Many thanks to Laura, Andromeda and the whole Crew for an interesting session and humor that smoothed out many difficult and shocking topics. Furry was talkative and playful.
The answers and discussion about the undergrounders made me wonder how accurate the description of the underground population in “The Other Side of Midnight" was, as discussed in this thread. And once this information starts to come out, I wonder how many readers of those books will start connecting the dots.
I also remembered the dark novel "The Other Side of Midnight" and its characters. Here's a good short review:
The Consortium, the Quorum, the alien interface, depicted in 'romantic' fiction - what the heck?!
 
Thank you all for very informative session!

One question that comes to mind is the ancient Egyptian priest who advised pharaoh. Could some of them also be born and raised underground and brought up for a specific purpose?

As far as the sickness of elites described in the session, I dunno if it just me, but I notice it spreading somewhat. Then of course there are cohorts of opportunists born in here who gladly jump on the bandwagon.

A lot to ponder about!
 
(Josi) What did the woman see, who made a scene while getting off a plane in Dallas by saying "That MFer is not real"?

A: Flipped out from the energy of one of the hybrids.
Q: (Niall) But this woman on the plane saw something, and she happened to see one of them. What did she see that made her go...?

(Joe) They said the energy flipped something.

(L) The energy flipped her out. And then she saw whatever she saw and that...

(Niall) He shapeshifted or something...

(L) No...

(Joe) No, she just said, "that guy isn't real".

(L) It was the energy.
Q: (Possibility of Being) I have a question. I'm not going to ask what it is, but if there is anything specific about them that is possible to recognize?

A: They are "human" in appearance, but the energy is different to those who are sensitive.

Q: (Joe) They're just weirdos.

(Possibility of Being) Do they recognize each other?

A: Yes.

This is how that particular hybrid looks like:

 
(Josi) Is Chelsea Clinton the daughter of Hubbell, Bill Clinton?

(L) Hubbell Bill... Who is Hubbell Bill Clinton?

(Niall) It was another lawyer who worked with Hillary Clinton.

(L) Somebody named Hubbell Bill Clinton?

(Niall) No, no. There's name mixed up there, I think.

(Ryan) I think that's a typo. I think that's meant to be "hubby".

(L) Okay. Is Chelsea the daughter of Hubby, Bill Clinton?

A: No

Q: (Andromeda) Is it the other guy?

(L) Well, they've put it on the net many times, the guy who was working with Hillary, and who looks exactly like Chelsea, or vice versa.

There certainly is a lot of resemblance between Chelsea and Webster Hubbel's daughter, Rebecca. Here are their photos side by side:


A related conspiracy theory picks up on the fact that Chelsea doesn't look much like herself in her childhood photos, and that the real Chelsea has been replaced by one of Hubbel's children. Seems far fetched, children often look completely different than the adults they grow up to be. But after learning that the former first lady has male parts and the Obama kids aren't Obama kids at all, I guess it's hard not to wonder. Especially that the Clintons have a keen interest in all things satanic and disgusting, who knows, maybe somewhere along the line they got close to sickos who like child sacrifice or something.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom