Stylistic Analysis: The Wave book one

[Novelis]

Q: (L) This body of comets?
Q: (L) This body of comets?

The usage of ‘this’ is interesting here, but instead of looking at the dictionary entry, we will look at a grammar instead, called the ‘Collins Cobuild English Grammar:

1.182 You use the specific determiners ‘this;, ‘that’, ‘these’, and ‘those’ to refer to people or things in a definite way. You use ‘this’ and ‘these’ to talk about people and things that are close to you in place or time. When you talk about people or things that are more distant in place or time, you use ‘that’ and ‘those’.

You put ‘this’ and ‘that’ in front of singular nouns, uncount nouns, and the singular pronoun ‘one’. You put ‘these’ and ‘those’ in front of plural nouns and the plural pronoun ‘ones’. ‘This’, ‘that’, ‘these’ and ‘those’ are often called demonstratives or demonstrative adjectives.

Wait, that can’t be right, the comets are not close in place or time, so why did the questioner use ‘this’?

Well, there is another entry:

1.187 You can indicate that you are referring to the same person or thing you have just mentioned by using ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘these’, or those in front of a noun. For example, if you have just mentioned a girl, you can refer to her as ‘this girl’ or ‘that girl’ the second time you mention her. Normally, you use a pronoun to refer to someone or something you have just mentioned but sometimes you cannot do this because it might not be clear who or what the pronoun refers to.

Students and staff suggest books for the library, and normally we’re quite happy to get those books.
Their house is in a valley. The people in that valley speak about the people in the next valley as ‘foreigners’.
They had a lot of diamonds, and they asked her if she could possibly get these diamonds to Britain.

Ok, so the questioner uses ‘this’ in the above meaning, where they are indicating that they are referring to the same comets as ones mentioned before, but, before we determine exactly which ones, I would just like to ascertain why the questioner uses ‘this’ and not ‘that’?

What’s the difference between ‘this body of comets’ and ‘that body of comets’?

Well, if we think about it, ‘this’ DOES bring a sense of closeness, but not in literal space and time, but in terms of the abstract space and time in the discussion that is taking place.

The questioner and the C’s are engaged in a hypothetical construct, a “bubble” where, in an abstract sense, there are rules that are separate from, and can be referred to distinctly apart from, the physical universe where we are.

This will become important when I will discuss this “separation” as a cultural phenomenon at a later date…

For now, let’s think about the difference in meaning of ‘this’ from ‘that’:

This body of comets? -> That body of comets?

Using ‘that’ gives the impression that the questioner is referring to some other discussion, or THAT which someone else has brought up, maybe even a part of the discussion that is “further away” (as in, further back in time) than ‘this one’. In other words, ‘this’ brings the two topics closer together in the “hypothetical Universe” of their discussion.

So, it is quite clear that the questioner used ‘this’ to refer to the same comets that were just mentioned, but which ones?

Is it the following?

What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?

No, it makes little sense that the questioner would want to reaffirm that the body of comets referred to as ‘this’ is the same ones as the ‘body’ that the Sumerians refer to, since the C’s have just answered that.

It is more likely that ‘this’ refers to:

A: Cometary showers.

It seems logical that the questioner would want to reaffirm that the comets which “are determined by external vibrational events”, the comets that “recur like clockwork”, the ones that are a “regular pulsation”, the ones that have “their own orbit”, and that “orbit around the sun”, which “come into the plane of the ecliptic once every 3,600 years”, are indeed the same as the ones that are recorded in Sumerian myth.

I say that because when the questioner talks about Sumerians, the topic of conversation shifted slightly, from “regular dyings” to “Sumerian records”, and the questioner wants to verify that they are the very same object across two subjects.

This “topical change” that has been identified here, through the use of ‘this’ in this particular instance, tells us something very interesting about how the questioner categorises these “schemas” in her mind. It tells us that the questioner views the “topic” preceding the Sumerians as being different.

This doesn’t seem like a very interesting fact in itself, but IF the questioner was asking about the regularity of dyings exactly as Sitchin proposes, using HIS conceptual framework, then the “Sumerian topic” wouldn’t have been differentiated in the questioner’s mind, and there would be no reason to confirm that these two topics converge.

Further on, in the next question, they will want to ascertain WHERE these topics converge.

This indicates that the questioner, while knowing about Sitchin’s theory, still has their own ideas about the wider world of concepts in general, hence the differentiation. I would propose then that:

Is it true that at regular intervals the sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy, which then causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another to a greater or lesser extent?

Is in fact the questioner’s OWN theory, one that includes Sitchin’s theory, but one where Sitchin is just one element, and one that is most probably a “consensus of a plethora of conceptual networks”, or an amalgamation of many theories, the ONE that makes the most sense, pulled from the various pieces that are deemed most likely, plausible, and where the evidence leads.

This means that the above statement is actually a result of a lot of homework, which would account for its preciseness and complex linguistic structure.

You notice that the C’s give the most worded answer here?

They are mirroring, the more a given question is the result of blood, sweat and tears, the more information the C’s give in response, or, rather, the more dynamic their answers are.

I will present my hypothesis for why this is so:

The more homework one does, then the more there is a synthesis of disparate, yet related schemas in one’s mind. Each schema represents a different avenue, and is dissected, analysed and evaluated by the C’s in terms of accuracy according to the relative closeness of each schema to the objective truth, then they articulate a response in a way that will account for all the deviancies from said objectivity, and each word holds dynamic, complex and non-linear interrelations of meaning that vouches for each discrete schema.

Putting it simply, say you’ve read Velikovsky and you ask a question about it. The C’s will answer according to the accuracy of Velikovsky’s theories.

But say you’ve read Velikovsky and Sitchin, and you’ve created a synthesis of these two theories in your mind, and you ask a question about the synthesis. The C’s will account for the varying inaccuracies of both theories, and will give an answer that allows the questioner to see the shortcomings of both theories, hence the more complex answer of:

Other irregular pulsations determined by external vibrational events.

Put in that light, is it becoming apparent to us how masterful the C’s are using the English language?

But, do we remember what purpose this answer served? It put doubt in the mind of the questioner, which implies a degree of uncertainty, or insecurity about the hypothesis, meaning that the synthesis wasn’t strong enough. The C’s appear to be saying: “Ok, good job, but there is more, here’s what you need to get started…” Isn’t that the most apt thing they could’ve done at that point?

By using ‘Other’, where the ambiguity…

You use other to refer to an additional thing or person of the same type as one that has been mentioned or known about.

You use other to indicate that a thing or person is not the one already mentioned , but a different one.

…lead the questioner to assume the latter (doubt) instead of assuming the former. This means it was the questioner who KNOWS inside themselves that the synthesis still had room for growth, the C’s merely activated the questioner’s own introspection, and the questioner, using their OWN powers, their OWN world of concepts, guided by their OWN free will, they CHOSE and pressed onwards.

Now, back to the question “this body of comets?”…

This answer can now be extrapolated as:

You mean the body of comets that we’ve been talking about so far?

Now, why the affirmation? Is it pretty clear that this is the case? Well, given the need to double check, we can hypothesise that, when the questioner heard the last response that the Sumerians meant comets, that they immediately understood the immense gravity of it, and how it basically tears Sitchin’s theories to pieces, as I have explained in the last post.

This is important for 2 reasons. One, it took me, the analyst, a full investigation to understand the emotional weight of the session, one that is lost on the reader unless careful attention is paid. It means that there is a whole world of learning and emotional processing that the reader cannot have access to unless we partake in similar works ourselves, this puts the onus, for me at least, to go and experience this often painful process for myself, which this investigation is the culmination of.

Two, this tells us something about the questioner. There are those who will “shut down” cognitive processes upon hearing something that implies such a grand reconfiguration is due, but the questioner seems to be stimulated by it. The questioner’s interest only grows from here on out, indeed, the idea of needing a vast reconfiguration of ideas is exciting, fun, and enjoyable to her.

I would like to now expand the series of answers about the Sumerians into complete sentences:

A: Comets

Means:

A: The body that the Sumerians were talking about when they described the “planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru was a body of comets.

Or, if we take the “plural Clusters anomaly” into account:

A: The regular cycle of dyings that the Sumerians referred to as the “planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru ware bodies of comets.

There is another reason why there is a huge difference between orbits of planets vs orbits of comets. Comets get “used up” as they smash into planets, new bolides would have to come with each new cycle, whereas planets would keep going round and round, and a collision would about a certain end to such an orbit, but, if no collisions take place, it’ll be the same planet every cycle, but different clusters of comets will be introduced to each cycle (Unless they don’t hit anything…).

This gives some weight to our hypothesis for why the C’s said “clusters” instead of “cluster”.

Next:

A: Yes

Means...

A: The comets that we’ve been discussing, the ones that recur like clockwork, that follow their own orbits around the sun, the ones that come into the plane of the ecliptic every 3,600 years, are in fact the same bodies that the Sumerian myths about Nibiru refer to.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Does this cluster of comets appear to be a single body?
Q: (L) Does this cluster of comets appear to be a single body?

A: Yes.
A: Yes.

It appears to be that the questioner wants to know more about the comets in question, but, when broken down, this question has some serious problems in terms of logical accuracy and consistency in meaning.

Let’s look first of all at the word ‘appear’:

If you say that something appears to be the way you describe it, you are reporting what you believe or what you have been told, though you cannot be sure it is true.

The chances are small that this is what the questioner meant. To see what I mean, we have to first take the C’s answer of ‘Yes’, and put the original question in the affirmative form:

This cluster of comets appears to be a single body.

In terms of pragmatics, the word ‘appear’, in the above described sense, has been labeled ‘Vagueness’, i.e. it appears to be, but it might not be. It is the equivalent of the word ‘seem’:

This cluster of comets seems to be a single body.

Can we see the problem here? In the above definition, ‘appears to be’ means that we are not sure what it is, a single body or not. Look at the example:

There appears to be increasing support for the leadership to take a more aggressive stance…

See, there seems to be increasing support, there is reason to believe that there is increasing support. To certain unspecified agents this increasing support looks to be the case, but whether there IS increasing support or not, the speaker does not know.

Similarly, the cluster of comets seem to be a single body, there is reason to believe that it is a single body. Is it true? Both the questioner and the C’s don’t know.

When looking at the word ‘appear’ in this sense, why would you phrase that uncertainty in a question? I mean, look at the question again:

Does this cluster of comets seem to be a single body?

Does this cluster of comets give us a reason to believe that it is a single body?

This doesn’t make sense…

However, ‘appear’ can also mean:

When someone or something appears, they move into a position where you can see them.

This could be what the questioner means, that the comets, when they are perceivable to us, they ‘appear’ as a single body.

This is reinforced by the ‘Plane of the ecliptic’ part, which is the mode by which these comets will become perceivable to us.

The problem is, the questioner is using the word in a sentential structure that makes it seem like the former sense. ‘Appear’ in the sense of vagueness is normally followed by ‘to ’ and then the main verb, usually ‘be’:

Does this cluster of comets appear to be a single body?

Like:

There appears to be increasing support for the leadership to take a more aggressive stance…

Whereas, ‘appear’ in the sense of something coming into view doesn’t have this structure of being followed by a ‘to – infinitive’, since ‘appear’ IS the main verb:

A woman appeared at the end of the street.

Watch the meaning change if I added ‘to be’:

A woman appeared to be at the end of the street.

This means there seems to be a woman at the end of the street, but the person saying this statement isn’t sure. Following this interpretation then, the phrase in question should be:

Does this cluster of comets appear as a single body?

Ok, now that makes more sense, the questioner is asking whether or not the comets, when they come into view, appear to us(?) as a single body. But there is yet another problem with this interpretation, and the problem is grammatical this time:

Does is the third person singular in the present tense of do.

When used as a question, ‘Does’ is seeking confirmation or contradiction for a statement containing ‘do’, in other words, the C’s could answer the question in this way:

Yes, it does (appear as a single body).

You use Do when you are confirming or contradicting a statement containing ‘do’, or giving a negative or positive answer to a question.

In English, when we use the present simple, we are usually saying that the object occurs regularly, consider:

I play football.

By saying this, we are not just saying that we played football at one time, but that we play football regularly.

However, we rarely ever use the present simple tense without some extra qualifying phrase that determines the regularity of the event. For example:

I play football every Saturday

Now, in the preceding questions, we have established the regularity of the cycle of comets, and so the usage of the simple present tense is consistent. But does the question and answer that we are analysing qualify the regularity of the cluster of comets appearing as a single body? Consider the following:

Does he play football? Yes, he does.

Technically, “yes” doesn’t actually say much, the example above could mean that ‘he’ plays football once every week, once every day, once every break time from school, once every year even! It could even mean that he plays football professionally as an adult!

Similarly, a ‘Yes’ answer to ‘Does this cluster of comets appear to be a single body’ doesn’t actually tell us much about the specifics of the cycle; by using the present simple, we can gather that it is something that occurs regularly, but it is a time-free statement, when it ‘appears’, it is seen as a ‘single body’.

But wait, do they?

Does the phenomenon, as observed by those on our planet, always appear as a single body, at every single point on the cycle?

Ok, let’s hypothesise that the Sumerians observed a similar cycle as the one that Sott is observing now. Did the comets appear as a single body to them? Is that why they described the phenomenon as a “planet”? Well, if the comets appeared as a single body to them, then the Sumerians could be forgiven for their lack of understanding and clarity by calling this body a “planet”.

The question and answer now confirms that a literal interpretation of “the planet of the crossing” hypothesis is a mistake, but the question acts as a kind of reconciliation for the Sumerian sources. In other words, although they have wrongly described comets as planets, their sources could still hold some value, if interpreted in a new way.

However, there is a problem with the “reconciliatory function” to the question, since if the questioner asked it in order to reinterpret the Sumerian sources in a new light, then they would’ve asked:

Did this cluster of comets appear to be a single body (to the Sumerians)?

But they didn’t, they didn’t want to know if the Sumerians saw it as a single body, which would thus reconcile what their sources say.

It is a very puzzling question to say the least, because it doesn’t seem to confirm much of anything. Like, does it appear to be a single body to ALL humans, or only to a significant/insignificant portion of humans?

Does it appear to be a single body to ALL life on the planet?

Well, regarding the Sumerian interpretation of comets appearing as a single body, I am going to ask some reasonable questions…

Perhaps their terminology was just different?

Maybe the Sumerian records are based on already corrupted information? Perhaps there was a similar “Sottist” organisation around at that time, who were “ahead of the curve” (Like we are now), who observed the real nature of the phenomenon, only their observations weren’t the ones that got recorded?

It’s an interesting direction, is “Sottism” is recurring phenomenon too, like the comets?

Is the same thing going to happen in our time? Will the coming cataclysm be recorded in a similarly misleading fashion?

Perhaps the “clincher comet”, the one to bring about our downfall, will be seen as one body? Maybe the majority of people will see this as THE isolated event, and thus see it as “a single body”, but Sotters will understand that it’s actually a part of an ongoing phenomenon.

Bringing the argument to the present, do WE see this cluster of comets as a single body? If the “Nibiru” phenomenon, as observed by the ancient Sumerians, is the same repeating phenomenon as that which is occurring before our very eyes, then why are our “Sottic” observations different?

I mean, pragmatically speaking, the people who are noticing, cataloguing and publishing the bolides hitting us every day, they certainly DON’T see it as a “singular body”!

Does the confirmation:

Yes, this cluster of comets appears to be a single body.

Have any meaning whatsoever? It doesn’t even seem true, at all!

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t any value. Despite the unprovable complexities regarding how the Sumerians understood this phenomenon, with this confirmation, we can reinterpret the Sumerian sources and cast it in a new light. If bodies in space can be called planets in ancient sources, but in reality are not, then readers are invited to “open up” the range of possibilities that exist, and to consider ancient sources within a range of possibilities, not just one.

Those who are attached to a theory, those who have a vested interest in a theory, or those who have built up their theories of everything else on “shifting sands”, may have a more difficult time “opening up” to the new range offered by this question and answer.

Again, the questioner and the C’s are working dynamically to press the buttons of those who cannot shift their hypotheses with the data. I would say that perhaps this was the point of the confirmation, since, if nothing else, the question opens up new realms for consideration, it breaks the reader out of literal interpretations and fixed events with new vistas of possibilities.

Then again, there is also another, more mundane possibility of qualifying a cluster of comets as a single body, as we will discuss in our next exciting installment.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?
Q: (L) Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?

A: Yes.
A: Yes.

In the previous question we discussed the strange usage of ‘appear’ and how the question doesn’t give us much information; we have also noticed the logical problems involved with asking it.

Now, in this segment, we can see that the questioner, after receiving a confirmation that these comets “appear” as a single body, now has seeks to project this confirmation onto present day rumours about these comets.

However, since these rumours are about an “object” being on its way, the questioner transforms “clusters of comets” into “a single body” first.

Let’s have a look at how this process happened:

Q: (L) Does this cluster of comets appear to be a single body?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?

In the first line, the questioner specifically asks about the reference for this ‘cluster of comets’, seemingly asking if it is ok to just refer to them as a ‘single body’. Then, in the very next line, the term ‘object’ is used to refer to the same comets.

The questioner looks to be “fitting” the data according to the dominant paradigm surrounding this issue. In other words, the questioner only asked the preceding question as an “intermediary” towards using the term ‘object’ in the next question.

As we have already discussed in the last post, the question about the ‘cluster of comets’ “APPEARING to be” a ‘single body’ didn’t seem to provide us with any new information, and so, I suspect that, in the questioner’s mind, there was a discrepancy between what the C’s said and what the general consensus is, and the questioner uses that question as a way to confirm that ‘object’ and ‘cluster of comets’ are interchangeable terms.

But this is not the first instance where there is a change from the terms used by the C’s and the questioner. This example is only the final transformation. We can now widen the scope of our investigation and look at the overall evolution of these terms, how they went from the original ‘cometary showers’ into ‘object’.

Cometary showers -> cometary showers -> Clusters -> cluster of comets -> cluster of comets -> body -> body of comets -> cluster of comets -> single body -> object

1. Cometary showers.

We have already pointed out that this lexical item was deviant, in that those two words never tend to go together in general speech. Adding to that, the term ‘cometary’ doesn’t even get an entry in the dictionary, while ‘shower’ is clearly a metaphor, it is symbolic. The questioner uses this terminology exactly as the C’s did in the next question about same, but…

2. Clusters

…after getting “clusters” in the next answer, a more concrete and literal term for the phenomenon, the questioner chooses to use this term instead. Clusters was not qualified by the C’s, so the questioner does that for them…

3. Cluster of comets

The questioner qualifies ‘cluster’ with ‘comets’ when asking about its orbit. However, when the questioner, in passing, morphs ‘clusters’ into ‘cluster of comets’, the C’s don’t object, and so this becomes the new preferred term.

4. Body

‘Cluster of comets’ was used once more until the questioner needed to refer back to Sumerian records, and logically, since the Sumerians referred to the same phenomenon as a “planet”, or, more generally, a kind of ‘heavenly body’:

A heavenly body is a planet, star, moon, or other natural object in space.

The questioner naturally simplifies the Sumerian term, from “Nibiru” to a more general term, ‘body’. We have already pointed out the interesting different senses of this word, but the point here is that, while ‘body’ was used in passing again to describe the phenomenon, it “sticks” as the preferred term, and this word is closer to the final lexical item in the sense that it is a definite, solid all the way through, literal term.

Notice how far ‘cometary showers’ is from ‘body’.

Notice also how ‘object’ is actually in the definition for ‘heavenly body’ above.

5. Body of comets

After receiving a bit of an unexpected answer, the questioner seeks a definite confirmation, adding ‘of comets’ to their last reference, ‘body’.

6. cluster of comets -> single body

In the next question, the questioner seeks to ask directly about the usage of these varying terms for this phenomenon, and confirms that they can use ‘body’ instead of ‘cluster of comets’.

7. Object

Once ‘body’ is confirmed as a satisfactory term to use, the questioner then uses ‘object’ to describe the phenomenon:

An object is anything that has a fixed shape or form, that you can touch or see, and that is not alive.

We can see how far we’ve gone from the original way of describing these ‘cometary showers’, from a symbolic metaphor, describing an ongoing event where many comets fall from the sky “like rain”. In the original reference, ‘cometary showers’, singular comets are not emphasised, but the end reference, ‘object’, the singular is all that there is.

It can be argued that, since the questioner morphs the terminology gradually over seven turns, and also because the questioner changes topics slightly in the next turn…

Q: (L) Who were the Annunaki?

…it shows that the final reference (object) was the actual point of concern in the questioner’s mind, that they probably associated the original reference with the “rumours” in the first place, and that the purpose of the last series of questions was to lead the discussion towards making strong associations between ‘cometary showers’, ‘Sumerian records’, and the ‘rumours’ circulating around that time about some “ominous disaster” heading our way.

Let’s hone in to these “rumours” then:

If something is rumoured to be the case, people are suggesting that it is the case, but they do not know for certain.

In hindsight, I can certainly remember the whole “2012 hullabaloo” starting much earlier than when the concept reached mainstream consciousness thanks to that terrible movie made about it. He use of ‘rumour’ is perfect in the question, since there was a heck of a lot of speculation, and the point where everybody seemed to agree, right from the beginning, was the concept of “something wicked this way comes”, but while this was suggested to be the case, nobody knew anything for certain.

I don’t think that Laura was the only one who was sincerely trying to find out just what the heck all of these “2012 rumours” were really about, but her works were always at the forefront of discovery, and the Wave got closer (In my own searches) than anything else at the time, and is still ahead even now.

Now let’s focus on ‘on its way’, I looked through the definitions for ‘on’ first, which has over 43 entries:

If you are on an area of land, you are there.

Is the ‘way’ an ‘area of land’? No, an area of land is fixed, it doesn’t move…

If something is situated on a place, such as a road or coast, it forms part of it or is by the side of it.

Again, ‘way’ is not something that is stationary, there is movement implied in ‘way’, so it can’t be thought of as a place…

If you get on a bus, train, or plan, you go into it in order to travel somewhere. If you are on it, you are travelling on it.

Is the ‘way’ a vehicle? Now we have our sense of movement, similar to the sense we get from ‘on its way’, but ‘way’ implies any form of movement, not necessarily a mode of movement…

I decided to look into ‘way’ since ‘on’ wasn’t getting me “anywhere”…

‘Way’ has over 77 entries, and I started looking through the words…

The way somewhere consists of the different places that you go in order to get there.

This isn’t absolutely spot on, since this definition puts the emphasis on the places that make up ‘the way’ somewhere:

Does anybody know the way to the bathroom?

The speaker wants to know the places that they will come across in order to get to the final destination.

If you go or look in a particular way, you go or look in that direction.

Here the emphasis is on the direction of where someone wants to go, look at the example:

They paused at the top of the stairs, doubtful as to which way to go next.

Luckily the Cobuild also has a big section for PHRASES, and, “all the way” (excuse the pun) down at entry 59, we finally find:

If you are on your way, you have started your journey somewhere.

1. He has been allowed to leave the country and is on his way to Britain... 2. By sunrise tomorrow we’ll be on our way.

Notice how there is a possessive determiner preceding ‘way’ (my, your, his, our, their, its), ‘on’ preceding the determiner, and also the verb ‘to be’ preceding the phrase?

Is this the same object that is rumored to be (Verb ‘to be’) on its (Possessive determiner) way here at the present time?

So, a perfect fit, Eureka! Now, according to the above definition, the emphasis is put on the fact that the subject in question, whether it be an object or a person, has STARTED the journey somewhere, in our case, that somewhere is HERE.

Once something is in motion, especially an object hurtling through space, there is no stopping it. It is inevitable. Further, since the questioner even clarifies by saying ‘at the present time’, we cannot underestimate the serious gravity of the C’s response, ‘yes’, which expanded means:

A: This is the same object that is rumoured to be on its way here at the present time.

I find it interesting that the questioner uses present in the adjectival form:

You use present to describe things and people that exist now, rather than those that existed in the past or those that may exist in the future.

Instead of the noun form:

The present is the period of time that we are in now and the things that are happening now.

Would the sentence work if we used ‘present’ as a noun?

A: This is the same object that is rumoured to be on its way here at the present.

Yes, it works, so why add time? What’s the difference? Well, the present is the period of time we are experiencing now, and is used to describe THIS immediate moment:

1. …his struggle to reconcile the past with the present. 2. …continuing right up to the present. 3. Then her thoughts would switch to the present.

As we can see, ‘the present’ is describing this very moment, it doesn’t last as a certain period of time, it is transitory.

Whereas, if we look at the examples for ‘present’ as an adjective:

1.He has brought much of the present crisis on himself. 2. …it has been skillfully renovated by the present owners. 3. No statement can be made at the present time.

By using ‘present’ as an adjective, there is a sense of duration, depending on the noun that it describes. ‘The present crisis’ consists of a period of time that can last a few moments up to many years. ‘The present owners’ will continue to be owners for an undefined length of time. ‘The present time’ also implies a length of time, no statement can be made for a duration of time.

Now we get to a very tricky word indeed, ‘time’:

With over 75 entries, ‘time’, like ‘way’ consists of a huge range of meanings, let’s try to narrow it down to how ‘time’ is used in this context.

Your use time to refer to the period of time that you spend doing something or when something has been happening.

This is quite close, but if we look at the examples:

1. Adam spent a lot of time in his grandfather’s office… 2. He wouldn’t have the time or money to take care of me… 3. Listen to me, I haven’t got much time. 4. The route was blocked for some time… 5. For a long time I didn’t tell anyone… 6. A short time later they sat down to eat.

Now take a look at the original question:

Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?

In the six examples above, the ‘time’ referred to is directly related to the subject. It is the period of time that the subject is spending doing something, or the period of time when something has been happening. Take a look at the following closer analysis of subjects and objects. The part that is in brackets is the subordinate clause, while the parts that aren’t is the main clause.

For those who don’t know about main clauses and subordinate clauses, here is an explanation:

A subordinate clause is a clause in a sentence which adds to or completes the information given in the main clause. it cannot usually stand alone as a sentence.

Adam spent a lot of time in his grandfather’s office…

‘Adam’ is the subject, ‘time’ is the object that he has been spending (in his grandfather’s office). ‘in his grandfather’s office cannot stand alone, so it is the subordinate clause.

He wouldn’t have the time or money to take care of me…

‘He’ is the subject, ‘time’ is the object which he doesn’t have (to take care of me).

Listen to me, I haven’t got much time.

I’ is the subject, ‘time’ is the object that “I” haven’t got (much of).

The route was blocked for some time…

‘The route’ is the subject, ‘time’ is the object of which something has been happening (being blocked).

For a long time I didn’t tell anyone…

‘I’ is the subject, ‘time’ is the object of which something has been happening (not telling anyone).

A short time later they sat down to eat.

‘They’ is the subject, ‘time’ is the object of which something has been happening (sitting down to eat).

Now look at this:

Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?

‘object’ (comets) is the subject, but is ‘time’ the object that the subject is spending? No, ‘being on its way’ is the object, ‘at the present time’ is the subordinate clause. Is ‘time’ the object of which something has been happening? Nope, ‘being on its way’ is the object that has been happening, ‘at the present time’ is extra information.

I should mention here that, although some might think I am splitting hairs by doing the above, I should add that it is this very work, carefully looking at clauses, dissecting them, arranging them, rearranging them, thinking carefully about the definition’s each and every word, this is what improves your language ability, this is what is beautiful about stylistic analysis.

Now, back to our work… We know that the above definition is not the correct one, so let’s keep looking:

You use time to refer to a period of time or a point in time, when you are describing what is happening then. If something happened at a particular time, that is when it happened. If it happens at all times, it always happens.

So, ‘time’ in this sense is a reference to a period of time when you are describing what is happening then.

Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?

Ok, ‘at the present time’ is a reference to a period of time, while an ‘object being on its way’ is the description of what is happening.

Bingo, but let’s double check…

Notice how in the definition ‘time’ is preceded by a particular, and is supplemented by ‘at’ in front of the particular. In our sentence, ‘time’ is also supplemented by ‘at’ and DOES contain a ‘particular’ in between them, which is ‘present’.

If we look at the examples, it becomes clear that we have the right sense of the word (I only chose the examples where the “at – particular – time” construction was present):

1. We were in the same college, which was male-only at that time (AT – THAT (a particular) – TIME)… 2. Home are more affordable than at any time (AT – ANY (a particular) – TIME) in the past five years.

The definition that fits was the seventh definition out of twenty (excluding phrases), In the Cobuild, the first definition is the most common, so it means that our use of ‘time’ is nearly half-way between the most common and the most obscure uses of that word. In comparison, ‘way’ was the thirteenth definition out of twenty four (excluding phrases), which means that our use of ‘way’ was relatively more obscure than our use of ‘time’.

Time = 3.5/10
Way = 6.5/12.

I find the above two words to be one of the most interesting words in the whole of the English language; the versatility of usage, the huge range of possible meanings, not to mention the philosophical significance.

Those who have read the Wave would have an even larger repertoire of meanings associated with the word ‘time’, as the C’s have pointed out, it is one of our chief illusions on 3rd density level. If one compares two individuals, one who has read the wave and one who hasn’t, I would state that their conceptualisation of the word is completely different. This brings us to what Mal7 said earlier:

If we take the simplest words that occur constantly in speech and endeavor to analyze the meaning given to them, we shall see at once that, at every moment of his life, every man puts into each word a special meaning which another man can never put into it or suspect.

"Let us take the word 'man' and imagine a conversation among a group of people in which the word 'man' is often heard. Without any exaggeration it can be said that the word 'man' will have as many meanings as there are people taking part in the conversation, and that these meanings will have nothing in common.

The above describes the difference between speakers of the same language, but we cannot ignore the conceptualisational differences between those who speak different languages. As a speaker of Chinese myself, I can attest to the immense complexities and philosophical significance behind the Chinese concept of the word ‘way’. I won’t go into it here, as I’m quite certain that I cannot do it any justice whatsoever in English, but it’ll suffice to state here that it underpins “all things Chinese”, be it art, philosophy, medicine, calligraphy, etc. Even the composite word for “I know” is “I know the way” In Chinese.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Who were the Annunaki?
Q: (L) Who were the Annunaki?

Here is our first instance of a ‘who’ question:

You use who in questions when you ask about the name or identity of a person or group of people.

Interesting deviancy, since the Annunaki are not a group of “people” at all. Yet the questioner still used ‘who’. I would’ve thought that the above question would've warrented: “Who or what were the Annunaki”, but I guess that Sitchin describes “them” in such anthropocentric terms that they are thought of as more or less human, thus allowing the usage of ‘who’ instead of ‘what’ going quite unnoticed.

Now, in the last question the author brought the phenomenon back to the present time, with:

Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present time?

But then in this question the author uses ‘were’ instead of saying: “Who are the Annunaki?” But why? If one uses ‘were’ it is suggesting that it was the case at some point in the past, but not at this point in the present. But we have already established the fact that the Sumerians were talking about the same phenomenon as the one going on now, so why didn’t the questioner, like the last question, “bring it to the present time”?

I would’ve asked:

Who/what were/are the Annunaki?

I noticed that in the last question about the Sumerians, the questioner also used ‘were’:

What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?

This parallelism means that the questioner in carrying on the same line of thought regarding the Sumerians, and is commenting on the records as they were written in the past, and not to the “timelessness of their stories”. Think of it this way…

What body are the Sumerians talking about when they describe the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?

If written like this, there is a sense that we are talking about their stories and their timeless quality, it seems extant, alive and still relevant with our lives, whereas if we use ‘were’, the records seem dead, long gone, irrelevant.

In the same way, if we compare:

Who are the Annunaki + Who were the Annunaki

If we use ‘are’, the Annunaki seem to be something alive at the present time, they exist now as a story in a “timeless” state. Think about ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ as an example, if someone is talking to you about the characters in the story, and you don’t know who a character they mentioned is, you’d say: “Who’s Gandalf?” and not “Who was Gandalf?” If you use the past tense, Gandalf sounds like a personage in history, one who has done those things he did and lived the life he did, but isn’t alive now. Whereas, if you use the present tense, it is as if you are immersed in the story, and that the story is timeless in some way.

The effect is rather similar to the verb tense usage in anecdotal stories, where we often use the present simple to “bring the audience into that instant” so they feel like they are directly participating in the story.

So, I’m walking along the road when I see this girl, yeah? And she says to me, where are you going, right? So I turn around and tell her that…

By using the past tense ‘were’, the readers get the sense that the questioner isn’t asking about the Annunaki in terms of those who may or may not interact with us in the present, but specifically about them as they were back then, about their actions towards those that only existed in the past, which were then written down a long time ago.

Another possibility is that the questioner is showing a divergence in thought between herself and Sitchin. Sitchin believes that the Annunaki have an extended lifetime, and so, it is theoretically possible for the very same Annunaki to return and interact with us, which means that ‘who are the Annunaki?’ could work. The questioner, however, might not attest to the same theories, and so keeps a certain distance between her ideas and those of Sitchin. This idea is reinforced by how divergent the next question is to Sitchin’s ideas.

A: Aliens.
A: Aliens.

Well, that’s an interesting answer, what does the Cobuild Dictionary say about it? Well, there are 5 different senses to this word, each quite interesting and worthy of comment in their on way.

Alien means belonging to a different country, race, or group, usually one you do not like or are frightened of. [FORMAL] Example: He said they were opposed to the presence of alien forces in the region.

‘Alien’ here is an adjective; it is usually used for disapproval of people belonging to different countries, races, or groups. It is also the equivalent of the word ‘foreign’. This is quite interesting because, while this cannot be the meaning used by the C’s, there is a negative connotation to this meaning that is similar to that of the hyperdimensional denizens that we come to an understanding of in reading the Wave.

If we were to expand the answer to make ‘Aliens’ fit with the definition, we’d have:

A: Alien beings.

You use alien to describe something that seems strange and perhaps frightening, because it is not part of your normal experience. Example: …an alien culture.

This word is synonymous with the word ‘unfamiliar’, and is again an adjective. Here we also see that it doesn’t necessarily refer to people. It could mean anything that isn’t part of our normal experience. Comets, in this sense, could also be thought of as “alien”.

Let’s try expanding the answer to make ‘Aliens’ fit with the definition again:

A: Alien objects.

If something is alien to you or to your normal feelings or behaviour, it is not the way you would normally feel or behave. [FORMAL] Example: Such an attitude is alien to most businessmen.

Here the word is synonymous with both ‘foreign’ and ‘unfamiliar’, and is also an adjective. The key difference here is that it describes feelings and behaviour. Let’s try expanding it again and see what we arrive at:

A: Alien effects/events.

An alien is someone who is not a legal citizen of the country in which they live. [FORMAL or LEGAL] Example: None.

Here we find the first time the word is thought of as a noun. We can “modify” the above definition to make the planet we inhabit the “neighborhood” that we belong to…

An alien is a being who is not a native citizen of the planet in which they live. [FORMAL or LEGAL] Example: None.

This is very interesting, as in this sense, the ‘alien’ is occupying the same space as a “native” and not some “visitor” that lives elsewhere. This coincides with what the Wave discusses about the “aliens” being Ultra-terrestrial hyper-dimensional beings as opposed to what many people think of when they think of ‘aliens’, which tend to be extra-terrestrials who or are basically as biologically limited as ourselves. We don’t need to expand the answer, since ‘alien’ stands by itself, but we can incorporate the last question into the answer as well.

A: The Annunaki were aliens.

This answer is interesting in itself too, since, with the past tense of ‘to be’, it means that the aliens that interacted with the Sumerians were aliens. This answer is not inclusive of the present time, it doesn’t mean that the aliens will interact with us THIS time around.

Finally…

In science fiction, an alien is a creature from outer space. Example: None.

Wow, this definition is definitely the way people generally think of such things, that ‘aliens’ do not exist except in the realm of science fiction, and that they are “creatures” from outer space.

You can refer to any living thing that is not a plant as a creature,especially when it is of an unknown or unfamiliar kind. People also refer to imaginary animals and beings as creatures. Examples: 1. Alaskan Eskimos believe that every living creature possesses a spirit… 2. The garden is surrounded by a hedge in which many small creatures can live.

Here we come across the word ‘unfamiliar’ again, I think this is the key to understanding such an answer, that the “Annunaki”, as a wider concept, represents a constellation of ideas, including beings, objects, feelings and behaviours that are not familiar, or unknown to us. It is also interesting to note how in general English people think of “aliens” as imaginary animals or beings.

The C’s probably understand very well our overly materialistic interpretations of this word, so, if our concept of this word is supposed to evolve to encompass a wider and deeper meaning, then why didn’t the C’s say more, to guide the questioner away from the material and into the more abstract?

If we were to come up with a “Sott Dictionary”, how would we define ‘alien’? Any Lexicographers/linguists out there interested? Based on how much work is here, including Sott.net, Cassiopaea.org, the forum, etc. It would certainly be possible to create a “Bank of English” of our own (probably with a higher word count than 645 million words?), and a corpus dictionary based on that!

Robin

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Where were they from?
Q: (L) Where were they from?

Here we have the second ‘where’ question, the last one being:

Where are these cometary showers from?

With ‘from’ being at the end, we have some parallelism, but the key difference being the use of the past simple of ‘to be’ (were) in this question vs the use of the present simple in the first question.

It seems that, since the questioner used the past simple in the question preceding this one, they are continuing along the same vein of asking about the Annunaki in respect to the past occurrence, and not necessarily including any “Annunaki influences” in the present.

In light of this observation, it seems that the questioner’s thoughts about the Annunaki follow along similar lines as Sitchin (at least at that time), who claims that the Annunaki are human-like entities that are more or less physical, and thus, since the first question has established that these entities “were” Aliens, it would thus stand to reason that they “were” from Zeta Reticuli, i.e. that they are, as Sitchin proposed, bound by spacial limitations.

Here we must note the extreme oddity to using ‘were’ in a question about where an entity is from. This is very deviant from standard usage of English, since if you ask a person whom you know…

Where were you from?

…you are implying that this person is no longer from that place, but how can this be? One cannot change the fact of where one is from, how can I change the fact that I was born in Cyprus? If I live in Taiwan now, and someone asks me where I am from, even if I have been living in Taiwan my entire life I would have to infer that the questioner is asking where my parents are from, right? On top of that, if my parents had lived in Taiwan for all of THEIR lives, then the question would infer where my ancestors are usually from, and so on.

Never would I say: “Well, I was from England, but now I am from Taiwan.” which just makes no sense.

On top of that, if we were to expand the C’s answers of these two questions where the past simple of ‘to be’ was used, we’d have.

Who were the Annunaki?
The Annunaki were Aliens.

So, what, are they not aliens anymore? That’s a most peculiar answer. It sounds much better if the C’s mean.

The Annunaki are Aliens

Similarly, with the next question, we have:

Where were they from?
The Annunaki were from Zeta Reticuli.

Again, how can they not be from Zeta Reticuli anymore? It makes more sense if it is:

The Annunaki are from Zeta Reticuli

But the readers who come across these two questions would no doubt have automatically assumed that the C’s meant the latter answers, in the present tense (they ARE from…), and not the answers in the past tense (They WERE from…).

Why?

Because in these instances, the past simple of ‘to be’ is NOT a reference to temporal measuring at all, it is far more likely to be a form of Conceptual Distancing between Sitchin’s ideas that were, the Sumerians records that were, and our author’s contemporary ideas which exist in the NOW. The questioner is saying that the ideas about the Annunaki exist in the past, and may not be applicable, or may not be the better explanation of the facts that exist in the present.

In fact, if you look at the next question in line, the questioner more or less confirms the above hypothesis because they introduce the ideas about the Annunaki that have arisen in contemporary times, and are an altogether different point of departure from the Sumerian records and Sitchinism.

Q: (L) Do they come here every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

But, we will get into more detail with that in the next installment, now that we have a better idea of the questioner’s theoretical stance on the issues at hand, let’s turn to a rather big spanner that the C’s have thrown into the works, which I have noticed from the parallelism between the two ‘Where… …from?’ questions…

A: Zeta Reticuli.
A: Zeta Reticuli.

Well, needless to say, this is certainly a very unusual (thus deviant) word, and is not in the dictionary, but Wiki has quite a lot on it:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_Reticuli

Zeta Reticuli (Zeta Ret, ζ Reticuli, ζ Ret) is a wide binary star system in the southern constellation of Reticulum. From the southern hemisphere the pair can be seen as a naked eye double star in very dark skies. Based upon parallax measurements, this system is located at a distance of about 39 light-years (12 parsecs) from the Earth. Zeta2 Reticuli is orbited by a circumstellar debris disk. Both stars are solar analogs that share similar characteristics with the Sun. They belong to the Zeta Herculis Moving Group of stars that share a common origin.

Let me just digress here a little and talk about another way in which we can measure the relative deviancy of each entry that is outside of the scope of the Cobuild Dictionary. We can simply look at the amount of Google results.

Zeta Reticuli = 321,000 Hits

Now let’s look at some of Sitchin’s ideas:

Annunaki = 886,000 Hits

Ok, so Zeta Reticuli, as a concept, is far more deviant than Annunaki, which has been covered more widely, not to mention the fact that Sitchin’s ideas have been promulgated in many different languages too.

Secondly, if you look at the other hits, Zeta Reticuli brings up more technical materials, whereas Annunaki brings up a lot more subjective interpretations, conspiracy theories and unprovable conjecture.

Now let’s look at some ideas originated by the questioner:

Cassiopaea = 285,000 Hits

Well, this term is even more elusive than Zeta Reticuli, a term that only tends to be known amongst technical specialists and academicians! But this search brought up an interesting idea, let’s look at the common way, the “undeviated” way of spelling that word:

Cassiopeia = 10,800,000 Hits

What a difference! Cassiopaea is 2.63% of Cassiopeia! Recall the affect deviation has on readers:

Deviation, which is a linguistic phenomenon, has an important psychological effect on readers (and hearers). If a part of a poem is deviant, it becomes especially noticeable, or perceptually prominent. We call this psychological effect foregrounding.

So, ‘Cassiopaea’, in spelling it this way, has become foregrounded against the conventional way of spelling it, with the effect that, whenever someone types in “Cassiopaea” the hits are almost ALL LKJ’s work related. Was this intentional from the C’s? Could this be the reason for deviant spelling of certain words, to create a “fast tracking” system to Laura’s work, to clearly distinguish Laura’s work from that of others?

Let’s do a little experiment, The C’s later on spell the word ‘Nephilim’ as ‘Nephalim’, now we can do a comparative search:

Nephilim = 5,080,000 Hits
Naphalim = 111,000 Hits

Looking closer though, we see that ‘Nephalim’ doesn’t come up with any results that show up Laura’s work, so the likelihood of this linguistic device being used by the C’s in order to draw attention to Laura’s work diminishes…

Anyway, it’s an interesting thought, nonetheless.

Back to our discussion about the answer ‘Zeta Reticuli’. At first glance we can certainly assume that the C’s answered:

The Annunaki are from Zeta Reticuli

But is that the case? Well, let’s look at our previous analysis of the way the C’s answered the last ‘Where… …from?’ question. You may recall that the C’s did not actually answer the question at all:

Q: (L) Where are these cometary showers from?
A: Clusters in own orbit.

The C’s took the ‘schema’ (or topic) that the question opened up, then named an attribute about the cometary showers that THEY thought was the most pertinent to what the questioner NEEDS, or the aspect that is most conducive towards opening up the learning in certain directions.

Remember that, if we judge Laura’s work as a whole on the fruit it bore, then just think about the delicious fruit that resulted directly from the discussion being opened in this way, towards orbit, hence ‘regular pulsations’, etc.

Now, in the first ‘Where… …from?’ question, we can easily gather that the answer ‘Clusters in own orbit.’ obviously isn’t about the origination point of the comets, whereas ‘Zeta Reticuli’ seems, at first glance at least, to be a very clear origination point of the Annunaki. However, while we COULD take the C’s answer at face value, I don’t see any reason we should assume the C’s would “play fair” with this new question and answer in the most straightforward way. I would posit that, perhaps, the new question/answer, being a parallelism of the first ‘Where… …from’ question/answer, might actually linguistically function in the same way.

Therefore, if we think of ‘Zeta Reticuli’ as having the same relation to ‘where were they from’ as the first question in this parallel set, then the C’s could’ve taken the ‘schema’ (or topic) that the question opened up (the Annunaki), then named an attribute about the Aliens that THEY thought was the most pertinent to what the questioner NEEDS, or the aspect that is most conducive towards opening up the learning in certain directions.

If ‘Zeta Reticuli’ is an attribute of this topic, not the literal origination point, then maybe ‘Zeta Reticuli’ is simply a clue, maybe there is something about ‘Zeta Reticuli’ that is what the questioner needed, or it is a symbol that is conducive towards learning in the right direction.

Interpreted in this light, let’s take another look at the Wiki entry, I have highlighted in bold the parts that I think serve the above function of opening up the discussion:

Zeta Reticuli (Zeta Ret, ζ Reticuli, ζ Ret) is a wide binary star system in the southern constellation of Reticulum. From the southern hemisphere the pair can be seen as a naked eye double star in very dark skies. Based upon parallax measurements, this system is located at a distance of about 39 light-years (12 parsecs) from the Earth. Zeta2 Reticuli is orbited by a circumstellar debris disk. Both stars are solar analogs that share similar characteristics with the Sun. They belong to the Zeta Herculis Moving Group of stars that share a common origin.

Maybe ‘Zeta Reticuli’ was chosen as an answer because it is the most similar in terms of our own situation? Maybe the C’s aren’t saying ‘they are from Zeta Reticuli’ but are saying ‘Zeta Reticuli is significant’ or ‘Look into Zeta Reticuli…’ The lay person wouldn’t know about Zeta Reticuli, and so, maybe the C’s are counting on the questioner/readers to look it up, whereupon they would discover the very possibility of binary star systems in reality.

I wonder if the questioner in fact find out about binary star systems in this very way?

In light of what we know now about the nature of the ‘periodicity of dyings’ now, it’s interesting that the parallels between that star system and our own turn out to be so. Isn’t it amazing if the C’s actually operated in this way? It would imply that they are not just communicating with the questioner at that time, but are also communicating with readers (Yours truly included) who will investigate these matters, and indeed even communicating with the questioner in the future, whom, equipped with hindsight and experience, can re-evaluate the C’s communications! Furthermore, if the above hypothesis is correct, then the question of where ‘they’ are from is still relatively open, or at least up for questioning.

I have to admit that, as a reader that is not in direct contact with the C’s, I’d like to think that they have somehow embedded special messages for me personally which I will discover in time. However, while I do have certain confirmations that this is really the case, I strictly throw such possibilities in the “wishful thinking” and “I am special” bin, and I wouldn’t assume this to be the case, I don’t even allow myself to entertain such a dangerous notion.

But it IS possible, and I’m sure I am not the only reader who has had such “secret confirmations” that are never spoken aloud. For those who “run away” with such ideas without being aware of it, I would suggest that you STOP and place yourself under the strictest arrest, for you are in treacherous waters, my friend.

The ‘you’ in ‘We are YOU in the future’ is, at least in English, ambiguous in the sense that we cannot be sure if they mean ‘you’ in the second person singular, or ‘you’ in the second person plural. In Chinese such uses ARE differentiated, which is why I have to consider the possibility when doing translations. I write out ‘you’ in the singular then ‘you’ in the plural sense in brackets afterwards, with a little note that explains the ambiguity.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Do they come here every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul ’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?
Q: (L) Do they come here every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

In the last installment, I said:

[quote author=Robin]In fact, if you look at the next question in line, the questioner more or less confirms the above hypothesis because they introduce the ideas about the Annunaki that have arisen in contemporary times, and are an altogether different point of departure from the Sumerian records and Sitchinism.

Q: (L) Do they come here every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

But, we will get into more detail with that in the next installment…[/quote]

So, the time is right, I think, to talk about this in greater detail. Now, at first glance, it is fairly obvious that the theoretical foundation of this question is not really a “direct descendant” of Sitchinism, but more like a “distant cousin” of it. True, Sitchin’s work points to the Annunaki wanting gold from this planet, and using humans as slaves in order to obtain it. While this isn’t far off what the questioner is proposing, the questioner suggests that ‘they’ are not here for materialistic gains, but that the “gold” they are after is the energy within the soul, thus making the problem a whole lot more complicated and harder to understand.

After all, what is the mechanism, the nuts and bolts, behind this “feeding”, how do they achieve it? Well, I think this is one of the focal points that the wave series tries to untangle, and I personally think it fulfils this complicated task “swimmingly”.

Notice how the question is now in the present form, thus closing the conceptual distance that was established in the last two questions, and thus bringing the main concerns of the questioner to the forefront.

Finally about the verb ‘do’, we also note that this is a confirmatory/negative question, which makes it our seventh question of this kind, with three of them being ‘is’ question forms and three of them being ‘do’ question forms. The other one was simply a repetition (This body of comets) just to double check.

What’s the difference?

You use be to introduce more information about the subject , such as its identity, nature, qualities, or position.

When you do something, you take some action or perform an activity or task.

So, ‘is’ questions are aimed at getting more information about the subject’s identity, nature, qualities or position, while ‘do’ questions seek to know about the actions of said subject.

It is interesting to note that ‘being’ and ‘doing’ are two of the most fascinating questions that the author works towards in all of her works, and they are both quite well represented here in the questioning as “being” of key importance in this work.

Moving on, we also see that the ‘they’ used in this question is the pronoun for the Annunaki. It’s interesting how the questioner used the verbs in order to differentiate between their thoughts and Sitchin’s, but still uses the same noun for a question that is more in line with their own conceptual framework.

This means that at the point of this session, the questioner didn’t have a better term for these ‘others’ that was being theorised to exist, but this situation is quickly remedied by the fact that the term “Lizzies” is coined, and footnoted, in the very next session.

We will look at the origins of the term “Lizzies” when the time is right, but I believe it was first used by the Pleiadians, wasn’t it?

Next, let’s look at the word ‘come’ with its adverb ‘here’:

When a person or thing comes to a particular place, especially to a place where you are, they move there

What is this particular place that these “people” or “things” are moving towards?

You use here when you are referring to the place where you are. I’m here all by myself and I know I’m going to get lost.

Is the above correct? Well, not precisely, since the place that is referred to above is the personal space of an individual, not the collective space of humans as a whole.

You use here when you are pointing towards a place that is near you, in order to draw attention to it. …if you will just sign here…

Again, that’s not right either, since the questioner is not pointing towards a place near them…

I won’t labour the point ‘here’, but none of the rest of the dictionary entries fit either, so my conclusion is that it’s the first entry that suits the questioner’s meaning the best, although we have to firstly say that the usage is a slightly deviant, and that the term is not actually very precise. If we extrapolate from the individual space outwards towards collective space, we can narrow down the meaning:

1. Do they come to America every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

2. Do they come to Earth every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

3. Do they come to this solar system every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

4. Do they come to this part of the galaxy every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

Well, I didn’t include the house where the questioner is, nor the city, or the district because these beings are coming from outer space, and we automatically assume that ‘here’ is a relatively inclusive term. Even the first suggestion (America) sounds rather strange, doesn’t it?

This might not sound significant, but for us living in the modern age, we take this kind of assumption for granted. The fact is, what this question is implying is hugely significant from a historical perspective. If these beings are ‘here’ to sap our souls, then they represent a threat to all of mankind, and if you think about the history of peoples all over the world speaking about an “outside threat”, I am willing to bet that the use of ‘here’ was only ever inclusive of families, tribes, cities, countries, continents – only inclusive of parts of this terra firma – and not, until very recent history, referring to our planet as a whole.

Now we have established that the questioner must be referring to the planet as a whole, but which one? Well, if we follow the session so far, we see that ‘here’ was used before…

Is this the same object that is rumoured to be on its way here at the present time?

Presumably ‘here’ is referring to the same place as the present question under analysis, but is there another previous reference that can elucidate clearly where ‘here’ really is? I believe there is, in…

How often does this cluster of comets come into the plane of the ecliptic?

I say this because of the use of ‘come’ being used right before a place is mentioned, which is paralleled with our current question under analysis. If we replace ‘plane of the ecliptic’ with ‘here’ we get:

How often does this cluster of comets come here?

This seems to fit, so in other words, ‘here’ doesn’t refer to a place, but really a range of places whereby said “aliens” come into visual range.

This brings up an interesting problem:

I purposefully used the word ‘alien’ to simultaneously refer to both the living beings on their way here AND the foreign objects. The questioner used ‘plane of the ecliptic’ instead of using ‘Earth’ in the above question presumably because we would like to SEE the objects coming along in space before it smashes into us, that is to say, ‘here’ is within our perceptive range, thus known about before it is too late.

‘Here’ wouldn’t refer to Earth, as the place that ‘here’ refers to would be too literal for the context, and would be similar to asking your friend driving in a car to “come here”, and he takes ‘here’ as meaning that you want him to drive the car into your body. We infer meaning from the context, and so in this case, ‘here’ would refer to an inclusive range of places that are perceptible to witness these comets.

However, should the same precautionary assumption (using ‘plane of the ecliptic’ instead of ‘Earth’) hold true for ‘here’ as applied to the beings that also cometh?

I would propose that yes, this should indeed be the case, and ‘here’ should refer to our perceptive range of these beings in our space/time. I say so because these beings have access to hyperdimensional capabilities like space/time travel and manipulation, so, like the comets, if we wait until they “show up on our doorstep” to know about them, then it would be too late to do anything about it.

But then, if ‘here’ means that they are within our perceptive range, and ‘places’ is abstracted to mean “sights of cognition”, then surely, as the Wave series shows, they are already ‘here’!

In other words, ‘come’ and ‘here’ are utterly irrelevant in this question, and should be altered to include the above abstraction, this is what I came up with:

Every time the comet cluster is approaching, do they sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

Now that makes more sense, no?

Moving on then, in this question we have also come across the first use of the determiner ‘every’. In the dictionary we find:

You use every to indicate that you are referring to all the members of a group or all the parts of something and not only some of them

It is perfectly common, but which “members of a group” or “parts of something” is this determiner supplimenting?

TIME!

Yes, that’s right, we can think of a ‘time’ as being a member in a group of ‘times’, or as a part of something. Isn’t that the weirdest thing? We have already seen ‘time’ before…

Is this the same object that is rumoured to be on its way here at the present time

?

…but in that context, time was defined as:

You use time to refer to a period of time or a point in time, when you are describing what is happening then. If something happened at a particular time, that is when it happened. If it happens at all times, it always happens.

That clearly isn’t the same meaning as in the current question, so while the word is paralleled, the meaning is not. We find instead:

When you talk about a time when something happens, you are referring to a specific occasion when it happens. Example: Every time she travels on the bus it’s delayed by at least three hours… The last time I saw her was about sixteen years ago.

Notice how in the definition it says ‘a time’ and in the examples ‘time’ each has a supplement. I find this abstraction of ‘time’ to be very interesting.

Now let’s move on to the word ‘approaching’. We notice that it is in the present continuous form, which is quite rare in the session, the last one was when the questioner uses ‘talking about’ when referring to the distant past, and we have already discussed that. The question on my mind is, why use the present continuous in this context?

If you want to talk about something that is happening at the moment you are speaking, you use the present continuous.

This is not the case, as the questioner doesn’t mean that the comets are approaching right now. So why use that form? Let’s break down the sentence directly involved with ‘approaching’ into the simplest clause possible so that we can investigate with better clarity:

First let’s get rid of ‘Do’ so that it’s a standard form:

They come here every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth.

Next we can get rid of the adverb ‘here’ while keeping the subject and object:

They come every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth.

Now we notice that ‘to’ only adds more information, and the sentence is complete without the extra information at the end:

They come every time the comet cluster is approaching.

Now, which verb is the main verb, and which one is the auxiliary verb? Does it still make sense if either verb is gone?

Without ‘come’…

The comet cluster is approaching.

Without ‘approaching’…

They come every time.

We see that they both make sense, but that the meaning is quite different when either one is missing. In other words, if we want to keep the meaning intact, both of these verbs are equally important, they are closely linked together by ‘every time’. Now, It seems that my grammar skills are still not good enough to find and explain the mechanics behind this structure, so I am not certain here, but I hypothesise that ‘every time’ functions as the adverbial clause ‘when’ in this case:

They come when the comet cluster is approaching.

This makes sense, and I would suggest that the questioner uses ‘every time’ (maybe deviantly) because they wanted to emphasise the multiplicity of the cycle, but I may be wrong…

Now that we have the above, we can see that ‘approaching’ means:

You can also use the present continuous to indicate changes, trends, development, and progress.

The use of ‘every time’ instead of ‘when’ is simply fascinating, since, as we have discussed, ‘time’ here is seen as a “member of a group”, we can think of it as ‘a time’ within a group of ‘times’. Now, what does this “member of time” consist of? ‘It’ is composed of a piece of time/space whereby “an approaching” takes place.

Here, ‘a time’ is made up of this change, this trend, this development, or this progress of comets making their way here, almost as ‘a time’ is a conscious entity of some sort! Furthermore, ‘a time’, in this case, is but one member of a whole group of similar “entities” that are composed of the same “organs” (an approaching). Isn’t it funny how we give things “life” in order to conceptualise abstractly.

This “entity” is carrying another body though, these “Annunaki”, which we know are in reality the hypothesised overlords of entropy, the Lizzies.

Moving on…

If something saps your strength or confidence, it gradually weakens or destroys it. Example: I was afraid the sickness had sapped my strength.

Here we see how ‘sap’ is normally used to describe ‘strength’ or ‘confidence’, just this deviated use here describes ‘The soul’s energy’. Another interesting point to note is that there has to be a subject that ‘saps’ an object, it is a transitive verb, and because ‘sap’ has negative connotations, we can think of it as there being a perpetrator and a victim involved.

If the action or event involves another person or thing which the action affects, relates to, or produces, you put a noun group referring to them after the verb group. This is called the object of the verb or clause. If it is necessary to distinguish it from other objects, it is called the direct object.

He closed the door.
I hate sport.
Some of the women noticed me.

Clauses which have a direct object are called transitive clauses, and verbs which occur in transitive clauses are called transitive verbs. Transitive verbs are explained in paragraphs 3.15 to 3.26.

Many verbs describe events that must, in addition to the subject, involve someone or something else. Some of these verbs can only be used in transitive clauses.

The extra profit justifies the investmet.
He had committed a disgraceful action.
They are employing more staff.

This means that they are followed by a direct object.

She had friends.
Children seek independence.
The trail raised a number of questions.

So, which verbs in our session are transitive vs intransitive?

Back to our “victim”… It is interesting how the questioner uses the noun group ‘the soul’s energy’ instead of a one word object like strength or confidence. They did this because:

Many verbs which are used in transitive clauses can take a large range of objects. For example, there are many things you can ‘want’: money, a rest, success, and so on.

She wanted some help.
I put my hand on the door.
She described the background.
I still support the government.
He had always liked Mr. Phillips.
Japan has a population of about a hundred million.

Some transitive verbs have a restricted range of objects. Because of their meaning. For example, the object of the verb ‘kill’ must be something that is alive. the object of the verb ‘waste’ must be something you can use, such as time, money, or food.

They killed huge elephants with tiny poisoned darts.
Why waste money on them?

‘energy’ can be used as the object of ‘sap’, but ‘soul’ cannot. “They sapped my soul” sounds very strange indeed. However, I would argue that ‘soul’ can be thought of as energy in various ways, so the victim here is ‘the soul’, not the energy. So here we have some direct information about the subject and object. The perpetrator = Lizzies, and the victim = the soul.

What is a ‘soul’ anyway, well, people generally think of it as:

Your soul is the part of you that consists of your mind, character, thoughts, and feelings. Many people believe that your soul continues existing after your body is dead.

I think that’s quite a good definition, but I would bet that a “Sottist” definition for what a soul is would include much more than that. For now though, it will suffice to say that, by way of “sapping your soul’s energy”, the Lizzies are draining away the energy of your mind, your character, your thoughts, and your feelings.

However, that’s not the end of the story, the questioner further qualifies the energy as being ‘created’ by the fear, chaos and so forth. What they mean is that, with the approach of the comets, this condition will “generate” (create) fear and chaos, and the Lizzies will come and sap this energy.

That’s not all there is to it, since I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Lizzies can create plenty of fear without the approach of comets through their “skillful” use of psychopaths, or those with no souls.

Fear is the unpleasant feeling you have when you think you are in danger.

Chaos is a state of complete disorder and confusion.

So, if we extrapolate:

The Lizzies will utilise the state of complete disorder and confusion, whereby everybody thinks they are in danger, created by the approaching comets, in order to sap the energy of our mind, character, thoughts, and feelings.

Lastly, I would like to briefly discuss the usage of ‘and so forth’:

You use and so on or and so forth at the end of a list to indicate that there are other items that you could also mention.

What are these “other items” though? Are there other things, besides fear and chaos, that the comets will create? Maybe positive things? I don’t want to guess here, but I think the questioner knows and will make these conditions clearer as we read further…

Now, before we finish this installment, I want to propose that the two questions…

Is this the same object that is rumoured to be on its way here at the present time?

…and…

Do they come here every time the comet is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

…should be thought of as one unit. This is for several reasons:

1. The two questions in between (who were the Annunaki, where were they from), were obviously side verifications, not the main body of information.
2. Both contain the usage of ‘time’, which, although being different in meaning, still counts as a parallelism.
3. Both contain the usage of ‘here’ as an adverb for the same locale.
4. It is quite clear, after the analysis, that these two contain more of the questioner’s original ideas, whereas the two questions in between is more distant to the author’s thoughts.
5. There is parallelism in the two in-between questions, that of the use of ‘were’, and we have already discussed the “conceptual distancing” function that ‘were’ contains.
6. The C’s have answered ‘yes’ to both questions.

Here is the combined information contained in both these two questions:

Every time this body of comets that is on its way now approaches, it creates fear and chaos, which the Lizzies will use in order to sap the soul’s energy.

And with that, I bid you all goodnight, see you next time…

Robin