You may like to read Splitting Reality (if you did not read it yet) where you will find some of our thoughts on this subject.Tigersoap said:Hello,
I don't know if this website _http://www.wingmakers.com/ has been discussed about before ?
I was very impressed by it at the time (before I read anything from the C's) and I was wondering if anyone had some insights about it.
Thanks.
And verify in the section "Channel Watch & New Age COINTELPRO" and more specifically for CHANNEL WATCH.Tigersoap said:Hello Slobamos
You may read the following text Splitting realities
The Search function might help you as well ;)
............(L) Well, after reading it, I don't even think I want to ask a question about it. Let's move along here. We have a question about the Wingmaker's information that we pretty much went through and analyzed at an earlier time, but never really brought to the table here. Is the Wingmaker's thing a complete hoax as has been suggested by some analysts?
A: No.
Q: Is the Wingmaker's presentation a source of good clues if one can figure out how to decipher it?
A: Yes.
Q: Are the clues in the poetry, the pages of philosophy or the art?
A: All.
Q: Is the story about the Wingmaker's information true?
A: Some.
Q: Is the Wingmaker's material "left" from the future into the past for someone to find in the present?
A: Close.
And, the context in which that snippet was presented - from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/realitysplit1.htmVulcan59 said:Here's a snippet from session 000923 regarding the Wingmakers.
Laura said:Well, that was curious enough, considering the fact that when I posted the excerpt from the session where we asked about the Wingmakers, I did not add any commentary which would have clarified the subject. The reader will notice that the C's said it was not a "complete hoax," which was then amplified by saying that there was only "some" of it that was true. "Some" - when the C's use the term - is a polite way of saying "very little." And this was what we had determined ourselves by analysis, which was discussed at the session, but which was lengthy and was not transcribed. This is one of the problems with people reading these sessions without knowing the background, or what the context of the questions is. When I asked the question about whether or not the Wingmaker's material was a source of good clues, the INTENT in the question, as we had been discussing, was that it was designed to lead AWAY from the truth, and that we could discern possible truths by looking at the OPPOSITE ideas presented! Nevertheless, I posted the excerpt, assuming that familiar readers would be able to chew on it and grok what the C's were saying in their terse responses.
Yeah, context always helps and keeping in mind the way Cs will answer things. If for example if asked "Is it possible that California will fall into the ocean in the near future" Cs might answer "yes", but if you asked "is it probable..." Cs might answer "no". Is possible to create a whole world of mis-reading from just using transcripts with no background reading.Vulcan59 said:Thanks Anart. I guess I should have also included the snippet from realitysplit1 for the proper context.
[1] for ex."...you in the future."