Session 5 October 1994
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
dant said:
Yes, and I think this also speaks to the 1.6 year confusion. It would make no sense for them to have said 1.6 - first of all, it's awkward phrasing that makes little sense (a year and a half would have been more clear) and, secondly, they never - ever - make precise time based predictions due to the nature of our reality. 'About 16 years' is the C's. About 1.6 years is a typo.
François
Jedi
Hello,
I agree with Axxel : in previous versions of the sessions published on the net, it is said :
1.6 years and this is not : 16 years, the "point" or comma makes all the difference, it should mean : in a little more than one year and a half and not sixteen years.
Let me add this quote from Session January 21 2005 :
(because it seems to precise what happens as regards earthquakes in the Japan area)
Q: (T) You predicted a quake in Japan, near Osaka, several sessions back, you were off by the magnitude a little bit and by the miles a little bit, but basically
you were correct. What between that prediction and the prediction for the Tokyo quak e can Japan expect?
A: Not correct interpretation. Osaka quake yet to be.
Q: (T) So this was not the quake that you predicted the 8.9, this was a 7.2, but it was miles distance from Osaka almost right on the money, but this was not
the quake that you predicted? (J) There's going to be another one coming?
A: Yes 14 more this sequence sequence (?? 14 more this sequence ??)
Q: (T) 14 more quakes? (J) I'm sorry, I'm losing it real bad tonight, I don't know why. (D) Are you breaking up? (J) No, it's me. Please repeat the answer. (T)
We're having problems down here in 3rd density this evening!
A: SEQUENCE.
Q: (T) This is one in a sequence of earthquakes that are going to culminate in the 8.9?
A: 9 pt 6
Q: (T) In Osaka, near Osaka?
A: Tokyo.
Q: Okay, that's the one you talked about, then a 9.6, that's going to be the culmination of the quakes in this. This is only the 3rd or 4th in a sequential series and
the 8.9 that's going to hit them hasn't happened yet.
A: 7th.
Q: (T) This is the 7th earthquake?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) 7.2 was the 7th earthquake, there's going to be 14 of them, is that what you said before?
A: Yes.
Q: (J) So there's 7 more coming? (T) So the 14th one will be the big one, in Tokyo?
A: 13th.
Q: (T) Okay, the 13th is going to be the 9.6 and I think the other prediction was 9.8, they're close. That'll be the 13th. What will be the 8.9, which one of those
will be the Osaka 8.9?
A: Within next 4.
Q: (T) What will the 14th be?
A: Small.
François
I agree with Axxel : in previous versions of the sessions published on the net, it is said :
1.6 years and this is not : 16 years, the "point" or comma makes all the difference, it should mean : in a little more than one year and a half and not sixteen years.
Let me add this quote from Session January 21 2005 :
(because it seems to precise what happens as regards earthquakes in the Japan area)
Q: (T) You predicted a quake in Japan, near Osaka, several sessions back, you were off by the magnitude a little bit and by the miles a little bit, but basically
you were correct. What between that prediction and the prediction for the Tokyo quak e can Japan expect?
A: Not correct interpretation. Osaka quake yet to be.
Q: (T) So this was not the quake that you predicted the 8.9, this was a 7.2, but it was miles distance from Osaka almost right on the money, but this was not
the quake that you predicted? (J) There's going to be another one coming?
A: Yes 14 more this sequence sequence (?? 14 more this sequence ??)
Q: (T) 14 more quakes? (J) I'm sorry, I'm losing it real bad tonight, I don't know why. (D) Are you breaking up? (J) No, it's me. Please repeat the answer. (T)
We're having problems down here in 3rd density this evening!
A: SEQUENCE.
Q: (T) This is one in a sequence of earthquakes that are going to culminate in the 8.9?
A: 9 pt 6
Q: (T) In Osaka, near Osaka?
A: Tokyo.
Q: Okay, that's the one you talked about, then a 9.6, that's going to be the culmination of the quakes in this. This is only the 3rd or 4th in a sequential series and
the 8.9 that's going to hit them hasn't happened yet.
A: 7th.
Q: (T) This is the 7th earthquake?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) 7.2 was the 7th earthquake, there's going to be 14 of them, is that what you said before?
A: Yes.
Q: (J) So there's 7 more coming? (T) So the 14th one will be the big one, in Tokyo?
A: 13th.
Q: (T) Okay, the 13th is going to be the 9.6 and I think the other prediction was 9.8, they're close. That'll be the 13th. What will be the 8.9, which one of those
will be the Osaka 8.9?
A: Within next 4.
Q: (T) What will the 14th be?
A: Small.
François
Welcome to the forum, Francois and Timo117. Would you both mind posting an introduction in the newbies section with a little about yourselves and how you came to be on this forum? As Francoi's quoted session points out, this 8.9 is part of a sequence, and if the 7.2 in 1994 was #7 and the 8.9 is within the next 4, meaning #8 through #11, it makes no sense for it to be due 1.6 years later. That would mean Japan would have potentially 4 more serious earthquakes within 1.6 years, which is unlikely without a very powerful and sudden influence on the earth. 16 years makes sense given the sequence comment, however. Also, I'm not if that the above session is from 2005, I thought I saw it in the original transcripts, which I don't have in front of me to confirm.
Tempus Fugit
Jedi
Timo117 said:
Hi, Timo117, and welcome to the forum.
I see this is your first post and your question indicates that you may not be very familiar with the work we do here or much of the suggested reading material. Since you appear interested in reading channeled material, I suggest this thread started by Laura, and this chapter of the wave. Although starting at the beginning is probably the best way to go, you may find some of your questions addressed quite efficiently.
Timo117 said:
Hi Timo117,
You are new to this forum and maybe you don't know the books that Laura has written.
Have a look at her books and her websites and you will discover that that session was really held on that date.
Why do you think she could have posted a false session ?
Hi François,
No need to apologise. We are all prone to making errors. By the way, welcome to the forum. :) We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, and how they found their way here. You can read through the many newbie introductions to get a feel for how others have done it. Thanks.
No need to apologise. We are all prone to making errors. By the way, welcome to the forum. :) We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, and how they found their way here. You can read through the many newbie introductions to get a feel for how others have done it. Thanks.
Ya'll keep in mind that all previous published sessions were published without being proof-read or checked. After Vincent Bridges pirated the CD with the sessions on it, we went ahead and published them in a limited version of a CD with a search function, without checking, with only personal names redacted. That was done by global "find/replace." There simply was no time to proof them.
After numerous errors have been found, I committed myself to the forum here to go through all of them, check them with the notes or with the recording or both, and get them published properly, without errors (or as few as humanly possible). Obviously, with all the other things I am doing, that is taking some time.
But, I've written all this before here on the forum.
Anyway, yesterday, after reading all the earthquake news, I remembered that the Cs had said something about an earthquake of that magnitude (or close) and I searched the sessions and found it. I, too, remembered it as having been something that was supposed to happen soon - close to the time of the session - so I was really surprised that the number in the ORIGINAL transcript in txt format said "16" NOT 1.6. So, I dug out the tape and listened to that bit and I am saying 1 (pause) 6.
The January, 1995 session, as you will notice, was being driven by Terry's questions, not my own. If there was any corruption as to timing, that is probably where it came from. He was always trying to "drive the Cs" to give time anchored predictions.
In any event, I can say that the original session text and the tape say 1 6 with no "point" mentioned, so how it got into the texts you have read that are other than those published and/or authorized as checked and verified by me, I can't say.
In any event, what the Cs meant is pretty clear right now - 16 years later - with the prediction coming darn close in terms of magnitude though, certainly, the exact location is off. But, as they say themselves, the future is open and nothing is fixed until it happens.
For example, they made numerous references to an event that can only have been 9-11, years in advance, with many elements being "right on the money" though they made it clear that the exact location of the event was as yet undetermined.
Now, if you want a bit of prediction, let me just say that I notice that there has been some serious activity close to the equator and below the equator in the past number of years, but north of the equator has been rather quiet until now. Here, I mean particularly the ring of fire. So, my educated guess is that there may be more coming of a very serious nature, like maybe the West Coast of the U.S.
After numerous errors have been found, I committed myself to the forum here to go through all of them, check them with the notes or with the recording or both, and get them published properly, without errors (or as few as humanly possible). Obviously, with all the other things I am doing, that is taking some time.
But, I've written all this before here on the forum.
Anyway, yesterday, after reading all the earthquake news, I remembered that the Cs had said something about an earthquake of that magnitude (or close) and I searched the sessions and found it. I, too, remembered it as having been something that was supposed to happen soon - close to the time of the session - so I was really surprised that the number in the ORIGINAL transcript in txt format said "16" NOT 1.6. So, I dug out the tape and listened to that bit and I am saying 1 (pause) 6.
The January, 1995 session, as you will notice, was being driven by Terry's questions, not my own. If there was any corruption as to timing, that is probably where it came from. He was always trying to "drive the Cs" to give time anchored predictions.
In any event, I can say that the original session text and the tape say 1 6 with no "point" mentioned, so how it got into the texts you have read that are other than those published and/or authorized as checked and verified by me, I can't say.
In any event, what the Cs meant is pretty clear right now - 16 years later - with the prediction coming darn close in terms of magnitude though, certainly, the exact location is off. But, as they say themselves, the future is open and nothing is fixed until it happens.
For example, they made numerous references to an event that can only have been 9-11, years in advance, with many elements being "right on the money" though they made it clear that the exact location of the event was as yet undetermined.
Now, if you want a bit of prediction, let me just say that I notice that there has been some serious activity close to the equator and below the equator in the past number of years, but north of the equator has been rather quiet until now. Here, I mean particularly the ring of fire. So, my educated guess is that there may be more coming of a very serious nature, like maybe the West Coast of the U.S.
François
Jedi
Hi,
I will do so, Vulcan.
According to both Sessions5 October 1994 and 21 January 1995, we should sadly expect one or other earthquakes next to Tokyo and these new ones with stronger magnitude. It is difficult to attribute a number in the sequence to the current earthquake (8.9 mag) but a next one should culminate in the 9.6 and this is terrible because we should alrerady think about Japanese nuclear reactors security...
Quote from Session 21 January 1995:
.../...
A: SEQUENCE
Q: (T) This is one in a sequence of earthquakes that are going to culminate in the 8.9?
A: 9 pt 6
Q: (T) In Osaka, near Osaka?
A: Tokyo
.../...
François
I will do so, Vulcan.
According to both Sessions5 October 1994 and 21 January 1995, we should sadly expect one or other earthquakes next to Tokyo and these new ones with stronger magnitude. It is difficult to attribute a number in the sequence to the current earthquake (8.9 mag) but a next one should culminate in the 9.6 and this is terrible because we should alrerady think about Japanese nuclear reactors security...
Quote from Session 21 January 1995:
.../...
A: SEQUENCE
Q: (T) This is one in a sequence of earthquakes that are going to culminate in the 8.9?
A: 9 pt 6
Q: (T) In Osaka, near Osaka?
A: Tokyo
.../...
François
François said:
I would say let's hope that this one is slightly off in some way too. Though I'm afraid that wherever it moves to, it's not going to be a good thing.
I do think that the energies are bouncing back and forth from one side of the ring of fire to the other and that does not bode well. Here's something that was said on 3 december 1994:
I guess what they mean when they say "ocean floor begins to subside" that they mean subduct and push against the West Coast of the U.S.??? And if so, maybe that action is being unleashed by the other Pacific rim mega quakes like Indonesia, New Zealand, now Japan?
What DOES seem to be obvious is that we are definitely in the period of Earth Changes and some of these events are going to be very dramatic and cataclysmic though a cataclysm at a distant place is just a "distant happening" to most of the rest of the people on the planet.
I
Infiniteness
Guest
Laura said:
Reminds me of the prediction the Cs made about the 10.4 in Northwest of the U.S, though they gave no date.
Edit: Add date of session.
