Sound wave focusing follow up?

[Benjamin]

Something happened yesterday and it took me a while to let it process.

While I was watching the Jay Anderson video yesterday, I noticed that I was having some trouble keeping focused. At about the 2/3's mark, all of a sudden, for a split second, a sort of bright tunnel 'appeared' (in my head?) with an image, like some kind of natural setting with blue and green, at the end of it. But the feeling that came with it was really interesting as was the word that accompanied the whole thing: "easy". The understanding that I got from this word was that the environment that was on the other end of the tunnel was 'easy', as in 'easy to do things in'. I thought about this many hours later and compared the feeling of whatever that was to our current environment, which I would now describe as thick, muddy, 'a total slog'.

I remembered the C's using the word 'easy' a few times so I did a quick search and these two stood out for me.

Nov. 7, 1994

Q: (L) Was anybody ever able to transmute lead into gold by any means?
A: Everybody is able.
Q: (L) How?
A: You must discover this yourself.
Q: (L) Is this knowledge written down somewhere on the planet?
A: Yes, but it will be easier in 4th level.

Nov. 23, 1996

Q: (T) Are you saying that the human/Aryan types can exist as long as they want in any density?
A: In 4th and 3rd.
Q: (L) They can move back and forth, existing with equal ease on either density?
A: Well, not with "equal ease," because 4th density is easier, naturally.

 

[ivanb]

!?!?!?!?WOW......o my god.....

 

[ivanb]

A few days ago, I was watching the end of a hockey game when the quote of "sound to manipulate gravity which produces sound to manipulate gravity" started to run through my thoughts. I suddenly understood what that might be, but I knew the quote was wrong. When I found it I realised that there are actually two examples.

Jun. 15, 1996


For the longest time I could not figure these out. It reads like circular thinking gobbledygook. But now I think these are two examples of a two-way antenna, like the "tuning fork" and Stonehenge. This feels like a type of unity because you can't do one without the other,

A few days ago, I was watching the end of a hockey game when the quote of "sound to manipulate gravity which produces sound to manipulate gravity" started to run through my thoughts. I suddenly understood what that might be, but I knew the quote was wrong. When I found it I realised that there are actually two examples.

Jun. 15, 1996


For the longest time I could not figure these out. It reads like circular thinking gobbledygook. But now I think these are two examples of a two-way antenna, like the "tuning fork" and Stonehenge. This feels like a type of unity because you can't do one without the other, I think. It's simultaneous.

More confirmation, wow. The small 'I' expands into the 'I AM' unified field of what we all truly are...this is exciting...
('I think. It's simultaneous.')... brilliant...

Thank you. Your helping me think along this lines again. I hope I could add my two cents to this discussion in the near future.

 

[Benjamin]

In the two images of the crop circle I posted earlier, there is a barbell type shape in the centre, two circles joined by a line, that is crossed by the 'string of pearls'. I'm wondering now if that's representing a 'two-way antenna'; two 'locations' (whatever that may be) linked by a conduit.

 

[Benjamin]

So, acoustical levitation was created to counteract gravity, a weak force. But plasma deals in the considerably stronger force of electromagnetism. Imo, that's the difference between 'acoustical levitation' and 'sound wave focusing' and the two concepts should be separated.

Hmm. In need of a fix. I can't separate gravity and electromagnetism like that.

Mar. 4, 2012

(L)... Okay, change gears: we watched this David Talbott video "Symbols of an Alien Sky". (discussion of which video it was) (L) The one about Mars was kind of compelling to me, but the other parts were silly. He just completely dumps out gravity, and yet they use gravity calculations to be able to send spacecraft up. So clearly, gravity IS what they say it is, and it does what they say it does, but there's more to it than just gravity.

A: Gravity and electromagnetism are intertwined.

Maybe I was trying to rebuke the 'mechanicalness' of the scientific treatment of 'acoustical levitation', even if I don't really like that term.

 

[Benjamin]

When looking in the transcripts for “sound wave focusing” the list frequently relates to stone in some way, as well as tone. But there was one response that was completely different from the rest.

Jul, 19, 1995

A: No, sound wave focusing is designed to alter body and brain chemistry in order to alter such things as feelings, emotions, and so forth, which then may lead to the altering of mental thought patterns.

With this in mind, I went in search of ‘religious experiences’ with specific regards to singing. A lot of sites came up filled with content that looked like nothing more then AI generated lists which was not what I was looking for. One thing I came across, though, was a quote generally attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo: “He who sings, prays twice.”

Looking for more on this, I found a post from 2006 on Fr. Z’s (Father John Todd Zuhlsdorf) blog where he gives his two-cents on this matter. (Emphasis his except for the green.)

Who sings well prays twice... NOT!

We had a look at the phrase "In necessitatibus unitas…”, [In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (lit. 'unity in necessaries; liberty in doubts; charity in all’)], etc. often but falsely attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo. Someone asked about another famous phrase attributed to the Bishop of Hippo, "He who sings, prays twice". Augustine didn’t write that either! Let’s look at it.

First, the original phrase is in Latin and the modern language versions leave out an extremely important little word: bis orat qui bene cantat… "he who sings well prays twice." I think any of you who attend parishes with sub-optimal pop-bands at Mass understand this.

So, if Augustine didn’t write that phrase, did he write anything similar that gave rise to the phrase?

He did write, "cantare amantis est… Singing belongs to one who loves" (s. 336, 1 – PL 38, 1472). This is the citation for qui bene cantat bis orat in the primitive edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1156.

But this is not the end of the story, folks!

In the Latin edition of the CCC we are sent to footnote n. 26 (oddly, this is note 21 in the newer English edition, which adds a confer reference to Col. 3:16 – which is not in the Latin CCC). Latin CCC 1156, note 26 reads:

Cf. Sanctus Augustinus, Enarratio in Psalmum 72, 1: CCL 39, 986 (PL 36, 914).
Surprise surprise, I just happen to have CCL (= Corpus Christianorum Latinorum, a vast series of volumes of Latin authors) vol. 39 at hand.

Looking up that reference, we find what Augustine really said:

"Qui enim cantat laudem, non solum laudat, sed etiam hilariter laudat; qui cantat laudem, non solum cantat, sed et amat eum quem cantat. In laude confitentis est praedicatio, in cantico amantis affectio… For he who sings praise, does not only praise, but also praises joyously; he who sings praise, is not only singing, but also loving Him whom he is singing about/to/for. There is a praise-filled public proclamation (praedicatio) in the praise of someone who is confessing/acknowledging (God), in the song of the lover (there is) there is deep love."

This is a very interesting passage. Augustine is saying that when the praise is of God, then something happens to the song of the praiser/love that makes it more than just any kind of song. The object of the song/love in a way becomes the subject. Something happens so that the song itself becomes Love in its manifestation of love of the one who truly is Love itself.

However, it does not say qui canit bis orat. There seems to have been some confusion of the verbs laudare and orare.

Obviously this is very Catholic Christian, but to tie in with "something happens to the song," I found this snippet from a 2020 research article titled “He Who Sings, Prays Twice”? Singing in Roman Catholic Mass Leads to Spiritual and Social Experiences That Are Predicted by Religious and Musical Attitudes". (highlighting mine)

Based on field research in a Canadian evangelical church, Adnams (2008, 2013) has provided a much more comprehensive typology differentiating between two dichotomous categories: “just singing” and “really worshipping.” To the “just singing” category belong sub-categories such as “un-minded singing,” “meaningless words,” and “dispassionate singing” (Adnams, 2013, pp. 187–190); these refer to modes of singing in which the singers correctly reproduce the words and the melodies, but in a mere mechanistic manner without any internal participation. They neither pay conscious attention to the words, nor succeed in making them their own spiritually or emotionally. The “really worshipping” experiences, by contrast, include experiences such as “feeling the words,” “familiar words,” and “my song is given to God” (Adnams, 2013, pp. 190–197). Here, according to Adnams (2013), “what is sung is what is felt to be real and expressed authentically in and as worship” (p. 197).

If projected onto the Roman Catholic theories about liturgical singing as laid out earlier, Adnams found primarily spiritual and dispositional effects. Social effects did not play a role in his analyses. However, his reports about “just singing” experiences should caution the churches against any belief that singing works quasi-automatically, without the involvement of situational and dispositional factors.

I saw a similarity between the "mechanistic manner" of "just singing" and the 'acoustical levitation' experiments in the laboratory suspending tiny balls of styrofoam in standing waves. It strikes me as lifeless, there's no 'god' (for lack of a better term) in either case. It's just sound waves being treated like objects, things. I'm starting to think of 'drone tones', if you will, sort of like carrier waves.

It's interesting that, in the transcripts, the C's don't say much regarding 'sing, 'singing' or 'song'. 'Sound' is another matter, but they did say this:

Oct. 22, 2008

A: You should sing more. Clear melodies can change the vibration of your physical structure.
...
A: Yes. Always. When the voice within is in harmony with the voice without, the angels will sing with you.

That "voice within" and "voice without" sounds a bit like a two-way antenna again.

 

[Benjamin]

While looking for something else, I came across a section that made me think of this section:

Aug. 22, 1998

Q: When you say that it was built using sound wave technology, were these sound waves produced by human voices or by instruments or mechanical devices of some sort?
A: Mostly latter.

The C's go on to describe the 'tuning fork' as the device being mostly used, but this section, that I ran into while looking for something else, struck me as being related.

Oct. 22, 1994

Q: (L) The planet that was destroyed between Jupiter and Mars that we now know as the asteroid belt, you said was destroyed by psychic energy. Could you clarify that?
A: The occupants of that planet, many of whom are your soul ancestors, simply decided to develop a service to self atmosphere that was so super charged in the negative that it actually caused their home planet to be destroyed because the energy levels became so intense crashing back upon themselves that they actually destroyed the atomic structure of the planet, causing it to physically explode.
Q: (L) Was this done technologically or was it strictly done by mind power?
A: They are one and the same.

"Mind power" or psychic energy seems to be playing a role with the 'tuning fork'. Now the mention of "atomic structure" also made me think of another section from earlier in the same session.

Q: (L) We would like to have comments on the thumping noises reportedly heard off the coast of California?
A: Expansion of a base.
Q: (L) What kind of base?
A: It's a transfer center for those beings known as the Grays.
Q: (L) And what was the thumping?
A: They are expanding it.
Q: (L) Is it construction work?
A: Yes except that they are using sound waves to disintegrate rock in the crust under the ocean. This disintegration causes the atomic structure of the particles being disintegrated to completely disappear which has something to do with why those sounds are heard in that particular rhythm.

In the first example, the atomic structure of a planet was destroyed by a supercharged negative atmosphere. In the second, the atomic structure of rock particles is disintegrated to create an underground tunnel or room by sound waves and a particular rhythm. Or is it the sound of the disintegrating particles that make the rhythm rather then the technology used to disintegrate them? Sound waves are still being employed but could they 'sound' different?

A difference between the two outcomes is that Kantek didn't disappear, it still exists, albeit in pieces, as cold as I've made that sound. Was sound used in the Kantek outcome? The sound of 'unified chaos'?

The three parts- sound, 'tuning fork' and 'mind power'- seem to be connected.