Strange reply to question about infamous Susan Smith murders...

FM258

FM258

Jedi
A session from oct 1994....Laura asked about these two kids......

Q: (L) There were two little boys stolen from their mother in South Carolina, we would like to know if we can obtain any information regarding this matter?

A: House in Union South Carolina in closet.

Q: (L) Can you give us any details about the house and how it could be found?

A: On street with lots of other houses white clapboard.

Q: (L) Any other details? Name of street?

A: Oak in name.

Q: (L) How close is this to where their parents are?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Where is the vehicle?

A: In woods West.

Q: (L) Are the little boys alright?

A: Will be found soon for comparison to ultimate results.

Who drowned her two sons in 1994 in South Carolina?


Susan Smith, nearing parole after murders of young sons, says ...



'The Shocking Story of Susan Smith': Prosecutor Seeks Death Penalty for Mom Who Killed Kids. Notorious South Carolina inmate Susan Smith reportedly told one of several suitors that she would make a "good stepmom" as her first parole hearing approaches in her life sentence for drowning her two boys.
================
I feel like the answer from the C's was less than accurate...I am always looking for answers from them that prove true, this one has me puzzled. Maybe they can be asked again about it?
 
allthatsinteresting.com

The Chilling Story Of The South Carolina Mom Who Drowned Her Kids Because Her Boyfriend Didn't Want Any

Susan Smith said she was suffering from a major depressive episode when she rolled her car into a lake with her young sons in the back.
allthatsinteresting.com allthatsinteresting.com

The Horrific Murder Of Susan Smith’s Children​

Susan Smith’s most intense extramarital affair was with a newfound employee at Conso Products in 1993. She began sleeping with her boss’s son, Tom Findlay, in January 1994. But the rich, handsome 27-years-old broke things off with her in October — writing Smith a letter clarifying he wasn’t ready for a relationship involving kids.

On Oct. 25, they had a particularly upsetting conversation. Findlay recalled Smith being “upset because David knew, or so she thought, some information that he was going to make public that upset her.” It’s unclear just what this was, while it would later be revealed that Smith had continued having sexual relations with her former stepfather.

Then, after insulting Findlay by claiming she slept with his father, he asked her to leave. Three hours later, she decided that if Findlay didn’t want kids, she was going to get her own children out of the picture.

Just three hours later, Susan Smith put her kids in her 1990 Mazda Protege and set out for a drive. As she approached John D. Long Lake, she rolled her car straight into the water, then fled the scene and left her two children to drown.

She then reported her car stolen and her children missing, even pretending that a Black man had carjacked her and abducted her sons. For nine days, she went on television, pleading tearfully for their safe return.

But on November 3, with police suspicious of her flimsy story, Smith finally relented and confessed about what she’d done. Her trial began soon after.
Click to expand...

It’s an interesting question. It was an early session so maybe there was some kind of interference on the channel or bias from one or more persons present that came through on the board.
 
One thing that occurs to me.

If the data provided by the C's turns out to be accurate, as in this case for example, it would result in a kind of test for the unbelievers.

I believe that the C's have spoken on occasion that providing proof is counterproductive to what they want to achieve, which could be the person's progress.

Then, the answers can be precise in a collateral sense, that is, the house where the children once were perhaps responds to that description, the car was once in a forest area with trees, etc..., which without lying it doesn't help solve anything and no proof is provided.

Jesus in a cave and then flying towards a spaceship, remember?
 
Wandering Star said:
One thing that occurs to me.

If the data provided by the C's turns out to be accurate, as in this case for example, it would result in a kind of test for the unbelievers.
Click to expand...
An accurate reply would lend credence to the authenticity of the channel, while one that misses lessens the belief....which one is more beneficial? I prefer to think the message was inaccurate due to other factors than them not knowing, just throwing something out there.

As TC stated this was very early on in the sessions, while still novices in the process.
 
Maybe the circumstances changed from the time of the making of this question. I don’t think we need to go over again and ask about this after 20 something’s years later. If after all these years you want to prove Cs credibility, it will be up to you to believe.
 
This seems like a case where what you’re saying you’re asking isn’t really what you’re asking. Like some have said here, it’s more about confirmation of belief which requires an answer that you will find believable or at least confirms you predilection. It’s a personal questioning, so you might ask yourself if the answer would really benefit others. It could. Or not. Is it the doubting Thomas story reloaded?

From my own point of view: what do the answers to these kind of subjects even provide in the grand scheme? Localized insanely tragic drama that gets amplified to national levels. What (morbid) curiosity is being satisfied? Why are we driven to feel like we need detailed answers about this stuff? That’s a more interesting question to me.
 
I think the answer was strongly influenced by those at the session possibly including myself. Thinking that a mother would kill her children was just too horrible and I think everyone was holding out hope.
 
I don’t doubt that bias influenced the answer, but one always has to study EXACTLY what the answers are. Where is the car? “In woods west”. West of what? The lake is in a heavily wooded area. “Will be found soon for comparison to ultimate results.” They were found. The answer does not say “alive”.

Back before the 2020 election, the question was asked as to who would “win”. The answer was Trump (probably). Many people believe that, in fact, Trump won. The question not asked was “will Donald Trump be sworn in as president on January 20, 2021”. So was their answer “wrong” or is the question actually ambiguous?
 
rs said:
I don’t doubt that bias influenced the answer, but one always has to study EXACTLY what the answers are. Where is the car? “In woods wes”t. West of what? The lake is in a heavily wooded area. “Will be found soon for comparison to ultimate results.” They were found. The answer does not say “alive”.
Click to expand...

I was thinking along similar lines. It's not as if the Cs had said it wasn't the mother, or that the children were alive. And if on top of that, we consider possible biases due to the horrific situation, then, it's not bad at all. It has never been claimed that ALL answers are 100% accurate. And Laura has explained the biases in the Wave. It's always a learning curve. Overall, though, the "hits" are quite impressive, I would say. :-)
 
I think there's a history of wrong answers or no answers to questions relating to ongoing murder mysteries. Imagine if they had revealed the truth there and then, and Laura or one of the attendees had gone to the police and told them, and the police then find the culprit and the children. That would probably provoked a lot of attention on Laura, which would likely not have been desirable.

There's also the matter of free will, and the requirement to avoid infringing it.
 
Laura said:
I think the answer was strongly influenced by those at the session possibly including myself. Thinking that a mother would kill her children was just too horrible and I think everyone was holding out hope.
Click to expand...
Thank you Laura!!! I truly appreciate you weighing in on this I was conflicted for a few days to ask. I still do not know much about channeling, Ive seen a few people claim to do it on you tube...im still fascinated by it and continue to support the groups process and progress. :love:
 
FM258 said:
An accurate reply would lend credence to the authenticity of the channel, while one that misses lessens the belief....
Click to expand...

Wandering Star said:
Exactly, you decide.
Click to expand...

I think this is an excellent point and the way you worded it, @FM258, is a good spring-board:

“… credence to the authenticity of the channel.”

Vs.

“…belief.”

I think there’s a good difference between believing in the authenticity of the channel (by which, in the context of this discussion, we really mean the C’s, although since they say they are Laura in the future, then the channel and the C’s are technically the same), and simply believing everything that comes through on the board.

Skeptics might interpret that as the mental gymnastics of a die-hard believer, but I think the key to it lies in the difference between how “credence to the authenticity of the channel” and “belief” are attained/obtained by the recipients.

In fact, I think attained/obtained in regards to the two terms above is respectively correct. Attained implies work involved to verify, whereas obtained isn’t dependent on work, but simply ‘getting’, somehow.

Basically, if we take the whole body of Laura’s work and the C’s transmissions and we verify it for ourselves by applying it in practice, that will build the overall “credence to the authenticity of the channel”, i.e., the probability that the C’s really are who they say they are.

Whereas if we are simply wanting and wishing to believe that the C’s really are who they say they are, then it doesn’t really matter what they say. Moreover, the belief itself may actually prevent us from applying what is taught. Because, what if we apply it and it turns out to not be true? That would destroy the belief we want to hold on to as a crutch.

So yes, what seems to be the important thing here is understanding that there is a difference between the source and everything that comes through on the board, and Laura writes extensively in The Wave about the various factors that interfere with and influence what comes through.
 
Last edited:
Does this passage out of the 10th of January 2002 session deal with this particular period, too? I suspect it does, but there are those who are far more knowledgeable than I, so please correct me if I err:

***

A: From the perspective of STS he is a success.(Frank)

Q: Why was it that we were able to channel STO material, with Frank being so borderline regarding this ultimate choice between STS and STO?

A: He was programmed for the specific purpose of "downloading" from you secrets coded into you before birth of your present body. He failed because you were incorruptible. He is now charged with the mission, in concert with Vincent Bridges, of destroying your ability to accomplish your mission.

Q: Well, that means that there is a strong possibility that the material that came through while Frank was a participant was very likely corrupted. Is that why you gave the figure of 72 percent purity of the material regarding those sessions?

A: Yes.

Q: So, are you saying that Frank's presence produced that 30 percent corruption?

A: Yes.

Q: What was the form that most of that corruption took? Can we identify it?

A: Predictions and terror tactics.

***
 
Absolutely agree. Having reread the questions and answers carefully - I see no contradictions. There is nothing in the answers that would shock Laura and those present at the session, but at the same time, the answers are accurate and point to specific details.

I think Cs are splendidly wise diplomats who can give a knowledgeable, truthful, and as accurate an answer as possible to any answer. :-)

But that doesn't mean that the answer will match the expectation or anticipation of the person asking it.


Абсолютно согласен. Перечитав внимательно вопросы и ответы на них - я не вижу противоречий. В ответе нет того, что могло шокировать бы Лору и присутствующих на сеансе, но в то же время, ответы точны и указывают на конкретные детали.

Я думаю Cs великолепные мудрые дипломаты, которые на любой ответ могут дать грамотный, правдивый и максимально возможно точный ответ. :-)

Но это не значит, что этот ответ будет соответствовать ожиданию или предвкушению, задающего его человеку.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom