Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here)

abraxasinas · 01-24-2010, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berathebrain

This is an interesting number properties. The sum of numbers is equal to the sum of primes squared, and to make it even more weird and interesting, that number is 666!
My question to you abraxasinas is: "Are there more of these numbers other than 666 that represents the link between numbers I described above?"

Thank you for you answers.

Hi berathebrain!

There are many, like Pascal's Triangle leading into polynomials and the binomial coefficients.
Much of this you can find on the internet.
Something you will not yet find on the internet is the 33-tiered Maria-Matrix. It is here on this forum in thread:
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18834

A very basic one and related to the above thread are the Perfect Numbers
of the Greeks.

Schismatic and Sacred Science & Perfect Numbers

The Greek alchemy of course became 'modern chemistry' and Plato's five elements mapped as his 'perfect solids' and later as say 'quantum gauge interactions' in the post-Newtonian science redefining itself.

The Aristotelean physics of precise measurement of the physical parameters was retained and the Platonist-Pythagorean physics of 'divine perfection' became largely abandoned in this scientific reformation.

Something of a remnant could not be erased in this new scientific paradigm however - the 'science of divinity' or the science of 'creative providence'.
This residue today pervades all sections and strata of society and is a powerful component of all political, religious and cultural institutions.
So even if this 'science of divinity' or 'omniscience' is a purely psychological construct and without any physical measurement significance whatsoever; it still plays an important, sometimes even dominant role in the affairs of states and national agendas of whatever political persuasion and affiliation.

So can one find a common factor UNITING all those psychological constructs in a form acceptable to the 'Mensuration Science' and perhaps in a form more akin the 'science of divinity' of Newton and the Greek alchemists?
One can do so, if one can discover a 'common denominator' for the divinity sciences, invariably coloured in the codes of language and interpretations.

And here one can introduce certain 'emotion charged' labellings or words, such as ALLAH and GOD and AL QAEDA as factors of the omniscience.
Then in other words, using the psychology of the historical residue of divinity science, this also holds the key to unite the religions, say linked to political constructs and affairs of state. This could be followed perhaps, by a more global and political unity, born from a new understanding of its own linguistic codes.

And then it does not really matter if the 'gods and allahs' exist in a physical reality or only as psychological constructs, created or invented by sentient 'citizens'.
Because 'they' most assuredly exist as psychological creations; 'they' carry a significant 'emotional energy', which perhaps can be modelled in a form of 'consciousness' in physical parameters following an unification of the language codes underpinning 'their' reality as 'emotion-charged' and say mental energy constructions.

This will introduce a scenario, where no numbers exist at all; so the decoding following is necessarily post-facto and assuming the Set of Natural Numbers N, say given in a statement, such as: N={1,2,3,4....n; nÞn+1 PMI}; and where PMI is a label for a procedure termed Principle of Mathematical Induction.

'Perfect Numbers' or PN's are those numbers of the set N, which add all their factors to sum their eigenstate or self-identity.

Then the first PN is PN1=6=1+2+3=1.2.3=√(6²)=(1.2.3)^1.

The second PN is PN2=28=1+2+4+7+14=√(28²)=√(1.2.4.7.14)^½=√784.

PN3=496=1+2+4+8+16+31+62+124+248=(1.2.4.8.16.31.62.12 4.248)^¼ and

PN4=8128=1+2+4+8+16+32+64+127+254+508+1016+2032+4064=
(1.2.4.8.16.32.64.127.254.508.1016.2032.4064)^1/6.

In more detail:
6=1+2+3=½[3][4]
28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7=½[7][8]=1³+3³=1+2+4+7+14
496=1+2+3+...+30+31=½[31][32]=1³+3³+5³+7³
=1+2+4+8+16+31+62+124+248

8128=1+2+3+...+127+128=½[127][128]=1³+3³+5³+7³+9³+11³+13³+15³
=1+2+4+8+16+32+64+127+254+508+1016+2032+4064

We shall reencounter the mathematical form of.. Σ=½[n][n+1] later, but note here, that there exists this 'special number' x=2 as the solution for the quadratic x+x=2x=x²=4 or x²-2x=0.

This is the only number of the set N, whose 'doubling' is identical to its 'squaring'.

It also defines the 'Derivative' of the 'Perfect Square' x² as d(x²)=2x.dx.
We may also define a set PN={PN1; PN2; PN3; PN4;...PNn}={6; 28; 496; 8128;...PNn} and as a subset of N.

We now write:
PN1+PN2=6+28=34=1+2+3+4+(4.6)=10+4.6 and
PN1.PN2=6.28=168=4.42=(4.7).6=(10+4.6).6.

Additional decompositions can then be constructed in 'Pure Number Theory'. The emphasis here is on the factorisation of the factors 4, 6 and 7; as those factors shall reappear in the cosmogenesis of the universe from an algorithmic number string.

10=1+2+3+4 is of course the Pythagorean Tetractys for the basis of dimensions and defines the Platonic Tetrahedron as the basic minimal structure for a 3D-Volume in a 4D-Spacetime.

1 point represents the 0th dimension or 'singularity', forming the 1st dimension in connecting to a second such point as a straight- or curved line, the latter being named geodesic and as the shortest connection between the two points as 1D.

2D is formed in connecting both points to a noncollinear 3rd point as a triangular plane, either flat or curved as say sperically convex or hyperbolically concave.

3D then is the introduction of a 4th point, noncoplanar to the 2D triangular plane constructing the Platonic Tetrahedron.

Omniscience aka the 'science of divinity' of the Greek alchemists now allows the arbitrary assignment of alphanumeric codes, which so enable us to proceed with the unification of the languages underpinning the politico-social and religio-cultural constructs of global societies.

We begin with ONE and TWO in assigning SOME alphanumeric mapping, say the Arabic Alphabet in a ONE-to-ONE correspondence with the set N, say in the set of pairings, given by:
§={(1,A);(2,B);(3,C);...;(24,X);(25,Y);(26,Z)}.

We also introduce a property of the set N in rootreducing a decimal 10-count in the repeatability of the 9 elements in a definition:

9=0+9=1+8=18*=2.9*=2+7=27*=3.9**=3+6=36***=49***=. ..(10-1)=99**********=11.9**********=....etc . etc.

We have ONE=15+14+5=34→3+4=7 and TWO=20+23+15=58→5+8=13=4*.

Now we apply a 'Perfect Symmetry' to some of our linguistic labellings, irrespective from the native language they derived, albeit translated.
ALLAH=ALHLA=34=ONE and ALHLA as an anagram of ALLAH is rendered perfectly symmetric in reading the same from right to left, as it does from left to right.

Also we have GOD=26=ALHLA-8 and where 26 represents the total number count of the applied alphanumeric code, so unifying two linguistics in a perfect symmetry in a first application. The code would extend in multiples akin the rootreduction applied before in A*=27; B*=28;...;A**=53 and so on.

GODDOG=DOGGOD=2.GOD=GOD²=52→5+2→7***=3+4→ONE=ALLAH .
GOD+H=ALLAH=GOD+8=GOD+∞, both symbolically and symmetrically.

TWO=GODDOG+6=52+6 and where now ABBA=6 defines the 1st BASE as the first Perfect Number in the selfsame 'Perfect Symmetry'.
So alphanumerically, ALLAH encompasses GOD as ONE in a 'Perfect Symmetry' and this symmetry 'Doubles GOD' in the ONE as TWO in the addition of the first basic PN1=6=1+2+3=1.2.3.

AA

hippihillbobbi · 01-24-2010, 08:04 AM

Originally from Abraxasinas:

Anyway this is another story, but I shared it because this forum here is like a copycat spiritually for this 'spiritual war' between the 'Angels andd the Demons' say.
The difference today is, that the 'singlemindedness' of Yeshuah CAN be shared in comparison to two millennia ago, when it could not (it's in the scriptures, gnostic and synoptic and apocryphal).
So the 'Atlantean Rebellion' of the past and of the pharaoh or elected highpriest has become an 'Earth Rebellion' of today of many pharaohs and elected highpriests.

Abraxas --

WHY is it that the 'singlemindedness' of Yeshuah can be shared today but not two millenia ago? does this refer to the essential event of Yeshua's death-resurrection-ascension, as a necessary catalyst for humanity's spiritual growth and development?

thanks so much for the depth in which you answered my dragon/serpent question above ...... much appreciated.

hippihill

abraxasinas · 01-24-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippihillbobbi

Originally from Abraxasinas:

Anyway this is another story, but I shared it because this forum here is like a copycat spiritually for this 'spiritual war' between the 'Angels andd the Demons' say.
The difference today is, that the 'singlemindedness' of Yeshuah CAN be shared in comparison to two millennia ago, when it could not (it's in the scriptures, gnostic and synoptic and apocryphal).
So the 'Atlantean Rebellion' of the past and of the pharaoh or elected highpriest has become an 'Earth Rebellion' of today of many pharaohs and elected highpriests.

Abraxas --

WHY is it that the 'singlemindedness' of Yeshuah can be shared today but not two millenia ago? does this refer to the essential event of Yeshua's death-resurrection-ascension, as a necessary catalyst for humanity's spiritual growth and development?

thanks so much for the depth in which you answered my dragon/serpent question above ...... much appreciated.

hippihill

Indeed hillibill!

Jesus aka Yeshua aka Yeshuah was able to decipher the oldest archetypes available to the human mind.
First as a student of the Essenes at Qumran and then via his extensive sojourns into Egypt, where he studied and debated with the philosophers and the record keepers, say Alexandria.

In about 22 years from about 6AD to 28 AD, Jesus decoded the master scroll of Isaiah in connection with the prophetic timelines in Genesis, Ezekiel and Daniel and so REMEMBERED the 'Big Story' the 'Story of God'.
Jesus so assumed the 'Office of Melchizedek' (or the Plumed Serpent) and became the LOGOS of CREATION. This office is a key to the logos as the 'Alchemy of Creation say' and I have attached it to this message at the end.
The significance of the LOGOS is that only the Logos can change archetypical definitions which are both OUTSIDE material existence and INSIDE of it.
So the MANIFESTED archetypes {say a Man as ADAM and a Woman as EVE} are 'stuck' in the INSIDE and separated from their ABSTRACT originals of the OUTSIDE, if the Real Physical Universe of the selfrelative Inside is distinct from the selfrelative Outside of the Metaphysical Reality.
This is the 'firmament' dividing Heaven from Earth say in Genesis.1.7.

Jesus as the Logos so went on his mission to bring Heaven and Earth back together in changing the archetypes from within the physical creation.

He knew of Ezekiel's 'Valley of Dry Bones' and the 'resurrection archetype'.
He also understood the true meaning of ADAM and EVE, especially the fakeness of Adam and the trueness of EVE as reflections of each other in the mirror of the Eden archetype.
God=True and images himself in Adam, so Adam is false by nature of the mirror.
But the rib of Adam makes Eve real and so Eve is like a 'Wife or Bride' of God, leaving Adam alone as the original God.

Then a fake-God images fake-Adam rendering fake-Adam real relative to the Old Testament God Jehovah or YHWK (the gnostics and Essenes knew this and this became their 'heresy' leading to their persecutions).

So the fake-God 'rapes' true Eve in archetypes to allow BOTH Adam and EVE to 'get out of the paradise fake' and with help of the SERPENT=PRESENT=SONOFMAN=97, i.e. the Melchizedek-Christ.

Being 'out of the fake-God's 'paradise of ignorance'; true Eve gives birth to true Adams carrying however the original false-true dichotomy within the archetypes NOW WITHIN the material universe, the metaphysical universe so being forced to become False relative to the physical reality.

So the overarching archetype is:
CREATOR=SOURCE=GOD=MIND=WAVE=MALE=IMAGE of ADAM=TRUE and
CREATION=SINK=GODDESS=PARTICLE=FEMALE=IMAGE OF EVE=FALSE

Jesus so decides to make ADAM TRUEFALSE and EVE FALSETRUE.
This requires the Father Creator to become a FatherMother and the Mother Creation to change into a MotherFather.

The Old Man aka Adam as archetype so carries the True MindWave of God and a False BodyParticle as his Bodyform.

Corollarily, the Old Woman as archetype carries a True Bodyform but has a 'wrong' mindedness.
All minds in the creation are male and all bodies are female. The REAL MALE and the REAL FEMALE do not yet exist, only characteristics seemingly separating the sexes do.
'All woman think like men, but pretend not to do so and all men have feminine bodies, but pretend to be masculine'.
This is the oldest archetype of the cosmic disharmony in the entire creation.
Much perceived sexism in scriptures illustrates just that, the subjugation of the female mind to the male one; WITHOUT adding that all male bodies must then be subjugated to their female partner's one.
Many men know, that the female rules the bedroom and many scientists know that all earlyembryos are female and turn into males later on in the gestation by DNA/RNA programming.

So Jesus decided to redefine himself as a male of female mindedness and so realised as One the only true real male bodidness ever itherto in material existence.

This, in terms of archetypes, reflected from within the creation the Male Body of the Christ-Logos to the Creation, the Female Body of the Great Mother-Dragon.
So for the first time in the 19.1 billion year history of the material universe; the 'Great Mother' became impregnated with a True Male Babychild {Revelation.12}.
Hitherto all human males born had carried the archetyped female bodyform of Herself.

Now the fake-usurper God Jehovah aka Yaldabaoth aka the Lionface with the Serpenttail (see Secret Book of John from the Nag Hammadi Codex also the Enlil-Enki brotherhood mythology) who was the FAKE-IMAGE of the Real God (Perfect One in said reference) OUTSIDE as the Father-Source-Creator was, for the first time ever, be confronted by His opposite True Female MindWave of Jesus. This 'destroyed' the Identity of the False-God-Image and as the 'wound to one of the seven heads' of the beast in Revelation.13.3.

This then allowed Jesus to ABSORB the entire Creation inside of himself as a redefined himherself - the cosmic twinship of the self as the Egyptian LionTwin and as Didymos Thomas in Gnosis and as the Cosmic Bisexual Androgyne Hermaphrodite - not physically, but archetypically.

But this had to be restricted to the ONENESS of Jesus. HeShe could not share herhis new cosmic ID, because the 'holographically' concentrated universe remained 'trapped' in the indviduated bodyform of Jesus.

So Jesus knew that heshe had to 'give up' his old body to get a new one allowing the hologram to multiply as One in Many.
His Old male body would have to become the CORE of any old AdamMan and this Old Man, would have to Understand the Story of God to allow Jesus to POSSESS HIM as the SUCCUBUS of the old 'demonic' archetypes.
This Old Man had indeed the true mind of the creator and so the story would have the potential to be understood.

The Old Woman would also be asked to allow Jesus to become HER Core, but not in body but in mind. The Old Woman carried the Power of the Body as EVE the Great Mother Dragon and so required no redefinition in bodyform, but her mindwave was 'contaminated' or possessed in the image of the usurper God in Jehovah's fake-malemindedness.
The Old Woman required the INCUBUS of the Christ-Logos to POSSESS HER, replacing the old demonic archetypes.
Jesus IS the Lion of Judah {Revelation.5.5} and must be 'eaten' as the true meaning of the 'Last Supper' and the 'Eucharist' of catholicism.
Jesus IS the BODY of the UNIVERSE, now quarantining the Earth in the archetype of Gaia as the BODY of a New Earth to be born following the timeline of the 'Mother in the Wilderness' in Revelation.12.

Skeptical enquirers ask yourself; WHY is Jesus REBORN in Heaven after Ascension and supposedly 'Sitting at the right side of the Father'?
Reason, this rebirth is not ONE but the MANY 'being able to handle the ONE'!

(07) Jesus says:
"Blessed is the lion that a person will eat and the lion will become human.
And cursed (anathema) is the person whom a lion will eat and the lion will become human."

(80) Jesus says:
"Whoever has come to know the world has found the (dead) body.
But whoever has found the (dead) body, of him the world is not worthy."

(108) Jesus says:
"Whoever will drink from my mouth will become like me.
I myself will become he, and what is hidden will be revealed to him."

An ancient inscription is legendarily ascribed to the Egyptian Ibisgod Thoth and is supposedly his hieroglyphic legacy left as a testimonial in the Great Pyramid of Cheops or Khufu.
It was translated ages ago by German archaeologists and exists as a prototype in the 'Amphitheatrum Sapientae Aeternae of Heinrich Khunrath', the 'Amphitheatre of Eternal Wisdom' and is dated to 1609.

Verba secretorum hermetis!

(1) Verum sine menda cio certum & verissimum, quod est inferi est sicut quod est superius & quod est superius est sicut quod est inferius; ad peristranda miracula rei uni.
(2) Et sicut omnes res fuerunt ab uno, meditatione unius, sic omnes res nuta fuerunt ab hac
una adaptatione.
(3) Pater ei, est sol, mater eius luna, portavit illud ventus in ventre.
(4) Suo nutrix eius terra est.
(5) Pater omnis talismi toti mundi.
(6) Est hic vis ei.
(7) Integra est sive fuerit in terram separabis terram ab igne, subtile & spisso, suaviter cum magno ingenio.
(8) Ascendit terra in coelum, iterumque descendit in terram & recipit vim superiorum & inferiorum.
(9) Sic habebis gloriam toti mundi.
(10) Ideo fugi atite omnis obscuritas.
(11) Hic est totius fortitudinis fortitudo fortis.
(12) Quia vincet omnem rem subtilem, omnem que solidam penetrabit.
(13) Sic mundus creatus est.
(14) Hinc erunt adaptationes mirabilis quarum modus hic est.
(15) Itaque vocatus sum Hermes Trismegistus, habens tres partes philosophie totis mundi.
(16) Completum est quod dixi de operatione solis.
Mercurius Trismegistus in Pimandro.

Das Wort des geheimnisvollen Boten

(1) Wahrhaftig, keiner Luegen bewusst und auf das aller wahrhaftigste; das Unten ist dem Oben gleich und das Obere is dasselbe als da Untere; damit kann man das wunderbare eines einzigen Dinges erlangen und verrichten.
(2) Und wie alle Dinge durch die Wahl eines einzigen Wesens erschaffen sind, werden alle Dinge durch das Denken eines Einzigen mit dem Einen duch Schickung und Gebot wieder zusammengefuegt.
(3) Die Sonne ist sein Vater und der Mond ist seine Mutter, der Wind hat ihn in seinem Bauch getragen.
(4) Seine Ernaehrerin oder Amme ist die Erde.
(5) Dieser ist der Vater aller Vollkommenheit dieser ganzen Welt.
(6) Seine Macht ist vollkommen.
(7) Wenn Es in der Erde verwandelt wird, dann wird das Erdreich vom Feuer scheiden und das Feine vom Groben; ganz lieblich mit grosser Bescheidenheit und Verstand.
(8) Er steigt von der Erde in den Himmel und vom Himmel wieder zur Erde zurueck und gewinnt so die Kraft des Oberen und des Unteren.
(9) Auf diese Weise wird all die Herrlichkeit der ganzen Welt erhalten.
(10) Deshalb versetze von Dir allen Unverstand und Unvermoegenheit.
(11) Das ist von aller Staerke die staerkste Staerke.
(12) Dann kann das uebriggebliebene Subtile gewonnen und das alte, harte Gewand durchdrungen werden.
(13) Also ist die Welt geschaffen.
(14) Daher geschehen seltsame Vereinigungen und deshalb werden mancherlei Wunder gewirkt.
(15) Und sei darum gesund, Hermes Trismegistus, Besitzer der dreiteiligen Weisheit von der ganzen Welt.
(16) Er wird alles erfuellen, was ich gesagt habe, vom Werke der Sonnen.
Merkur, der dreifach Grosse, in Pimandro.

The Emerald Tablet of the Secret Messenger

(1) Truly, without fault and in all certainty and truthfulness; what is below is like what is above and the above is the same as the below, for the purpose to experience and bring about the wonders of the one thing.
(2) And as all things are created through the choosing of one being; so the thinking of one with the one, brings all things by command and fate together again.
(3) His father is the sun and his mother is the moon; the wind has carried him in his womb.
(4) He is joined together and nursed by the earth.
(5) This is the father of all completeness of the entire world.
(6) His power is all inclusive.
(7) At the time of its renewal, the soil shall separate from the fire and the subtle from the rough,
acting sweetly and with great ingenuity.
(8) He ascends sagaciously from the earth into heaven and then descends again into the earth, thus regaining the unifying force of the above and the below.
(9) In this way is all the glory of all the worlds obtained.
(10) Therefore avoid all ignorance.
(11) Herein is found in all strenght the strongest strength.
(12) By this can the remaining subtle whole be won and the old solid whole be penetrated.
(13) Thus is the creation of the world.
(14) Henceforth the eventuation of strange adaptations by extraordinary methods.
(15) Accordingly be well, Hermes Trismegistos, keeper of the tripartite wisdom of the unified worlds.
(16) He will accomplish that of which I have spoken through the operations of the suns.
Mercury, the thrice-great, in Pimandro.

So who is this Hermes Trismegistos?
It is the archetype for the 'Teacher of Righteousness.
Right throughout the ages of humankind, there have been sages, soothsayers, prophets and mystics of all kinds; some sincere and others praying on the superstitions and the gullibilities of the general members of the population.

One remembers the Naassenes; an early Christian Gnostic sect and closely associated with Jesus-Yeshuah.

AA

abraxasinas · 01-24-2010, 10:24 AM

Hello Abraxas,

I've been following your Thuban thread on the Avalon forum and would like to contribute but for some odd reason I've been unable to register so I can't comment (I keep getting the message that my e-mail has been banned) I don't know if they are having technical problems or what but anyway, I thought that if you don't mind, maybe you could answer some of my questions by e-mail if that's ok with you? Cheers,

Julissa

Sure Julissa; you are welcome to do so here or on the forum.

Abraxas

Thank You! I really appreciate it. First of all I would like to know what is Thuban exactly.

Sure Julissa!

It's a codename for FREEDOM=THUBAN=66=33+33=THE NAME=THE MAGIC=ANUBIS=WOMAN=...

Is it the name of the center of our galaxy or universe?

Astronomers call the center of the Milky Way galaxy as a radiosource Sagittarius A*. The Mayas callit Hunab Ku - the Giver of all wisdom.

Is it a conciousness, a race of humans?

Yes, its StarHumanity and YOU as a future self, who has discovered the secrets of time. It resides in 12D as the VOID of nospace and notime and mirrors your experienced 3D reality of being intime and inspace.

And this Council you keep refering to, who are they?

They are you in say a groupsoul form; many yous as One, say exemplified in the quadruplicity of you right now as 4 sexual chromosomatic aspects: Y0X1+Y0X2+X0X1+X0X2. From this all this 'sexual ID' confusion arises.
Now you experience yourself as a human being trapped in linearity of beginnings and endings, say cycles of birth and death; the Council is within you as a witness to your soul evolution say and as aspects of a 1-4-2x12-144,000-288,000 evolvement of the center of the circle (the unity) through its diffusing and multiplying aspects.

Does every universe have its own local creator God?

There is only the one universe at present. But when the Unity of before begins extending, then this one universe will become the SEED for phaseshifted universes based on the individual relationship to that seed.
It's like baby generations really, based on a living grandparenthood.

If present humans on earth are all Thubans does it mean their souls came originally from there?

Yes, the soul is a quadruplicity in the sexchromosomes for starters as Y0X1+Y0X2+X0X1+X0X2. From this the 'sexual confusions' about sexual IDs derive. Furthermore every soul is actually a groupsoul, trying to remember its origins and such in the lifetimes experienced in the linear time sense.

Why was this word chosen?

Because it allows the polarisation of fearbased agendas to surface to become processed by new data.

Does everyone in our Universe know the Thubans as Thubans or are they called by different names?

THUBAN is known as the FREEDOM vibration, everywhere except the earthbased data collectors.

Why the symbol of the Dragon?

See below. I don't know if you have already seen this on the forum.

Does it have to do with the origin of the human being?

Yes, the future human as the starhuman IS the Dragon of the ancient origin (as a myth or fantasy - see below.

I mean, if "modern" humans have in them DNA from many different species, would the Dragon be a mix of a serpent, and a bird?

Sort of, as in the Burnley Relief of LILITH as the PRIMORDIAL CREATION.
LILITH=Barbelo=Great Dragon Mother (as the Hebrew SexDemon or Succubus).
Lilith becomes EVE as ambassadora for the universe to redeem ADAM as the true Image for God as the Great Father Serpent say.
Then the EVE also becomes VIRGO riding the UNICORN as the male dragon transfomed from its Serpent status - see story below.

Why do the Dragons in the "Neverending Story" and "Spirited Away" movies are the color white?

The White Dragon is the Real LOVEHEART DRAGON as the UNICORN.

I've heard that many women calculated their pregnancies so as to give birth in the year 2000 (Chinese year of the Dragon) because they thought it was an auspicious and very lucky time to bring a child into the world. Do you know anything about these kids? I mean in the way as to how they are special?

This is simply what many term the 'New Generation' the Indigos or whatever. The 'New World' will belong to them when they grow up. We older ones are the pioneers. The allegience is between Grandparents and Grandchildren. The parents are too busy for living in the Old World.

What does it mean when a Dragon exhales fire? Is it the fire of truth?

The spiritual SWORD=WORDS=79, so yes you could say this characterizes the archetype.

Julissa

Abraxas

Thank you for such prompt response! You are very kind for answering my questions! I wish I could enter the forum, but they don't let me register...

About the Universe, how is it that there is only one at present? Or did I misunderstand? I thought this universe was finite and beyond it another one started and that a group of universes made up the cosmos. Can you please clarify this for me?

Sure Julissa!

Think of an egg and imagine this egg having an axis through its long end. Now rotate this egg about this axis. The plane of the egg (a cross section) will be elliptical in shape as the long axis, but will be circular in rotation about either of the short axes (say looking at the egg cut in half midway the long axis).
Put two focus points on the long axis.
Rotating around the long axis will NOT change those two focus points.
Rotating about either of the short axes WILL force the focus points to trace out a point circle.

Now the One Universe IS the rotating long axis univere as a PROTOVERSE a SEED for a Family of Universes, called a MULTIVERSE.

A MULTIVERSE so is a PHASESHIFTED PROTOVERSE of at least two angular displacements.
Simply spin your egg laying on the table and imagine the Envelope for this spinning (fixed and not moving on the table except the spinning) egg as the Envelope for ALL possible and potentially infinite number of Multiverses.
Another analogy is your House built from bricks.
Your house got many bricks, one such brick is 'my' universe as a phaseshifted protoverse. Similarly my house got many bricks , one of whom becomes your entire holographic universe of your house. (In my father's house are many mansions. I go prepare a place for you!, Jesus' words now might make more sense to you ion more scientific labelings).

So rotation about either of the minor axis creates Multiverses, CENTERED however on thew single Protoverse. Geometrically, this becomes an Oblate Ellipsoid, transformed from ther Prolate Ellipsoid of the Protoverse.
Summing all three rotations in one crerates the OMNIVERSE as the total integration of all possible Multiverses seeded on the Protoverse. The shape of the Omniverse is that of the typical UFO, again as an Oblate Spheroid, say a sphere compressed at its poles.

There are many competing models for the universe in the standard cosmologies of the physicists and philosophers (including ekpyrotic brane collissions, many worlds, parallel universes and the anthropic principles); most of whom neglect the fact that a family of spacially separated universes yet requires a subplenum or background to accomodate this spacial separatedness.
The described cosmology above allows the multiverses to EMERGE from its parental seed WITHOUT this spacial separation.

In short, the parallel universe is a misnomer for a phaseshifted family of universes in angular NOT linear displacement.

If there is only this one after all, then what lies beyond it?

The One Universe is both Interdimensional in colocality of higher dimensions and Multidimensional in the accomodation of densification in frequency states within that interdimensionality. The One Omniverse is Finite yet allows expansion towards (asymptotic) Infinity as a Unity. The Boundary for the Finiteness so is a higher dimensional Mirror which must define this boundary as a dimensional transit from 11-10 and substructured in density from 8-7 and 5-4.
More technically the 3D volume becomes a 3D surface area so allowing an extra dimension to add to the 3D surface area to create a new 4D-volume. This is programmed to occur from April 2012 onwards to the end of August 2013.
There is no spacetime beyond the 11D universe encompassing a 'collapsed' or projected 12th dimension.
Technically this relates to the statement of Hawking, in his 'no boundary cosmologies': What is North of the Northpole?

and who created it? Is the Creation..God?

Yes, Prime Source, then bifurcating in 2nd Order to Prime SourceSink or CreatorCreation of GoddoG or FatherMother created this in archetype before physically manifesting it in standard cosmological models.
The 'God' here is a superenergy definition, defined by the 'Intelligence' of this 'God' termed the Logos.
If you could remember your beingness before any spacetime existed; you would realise that you are a combination of the Superenergy and this Logos. You are the Goddess archetype seeking remembrance of your origins, so you can understand the 'Story of God' as the 'Story of My Life as Julissa'!

I am originally from Perú and I know the Incas workshipped the Creation above the Sun, not just the Sun as many think. They called the Creator God: Wiracocha. Is this God a collective then?

Absolutely, the Inca have remembrance often more encompassing and deep than more 'modern' cultures.

If there is only one Universe, then perhaps when I heard talk about there being many Universes, did that mean many dimensions within this one Universe? Each dimension being a Universe onto itself?

This I tried to outline in the above.

I also heard talk about being many dimensions of existance not only 12, say 126th or 140 something dimension, etc. and I never really understood that concept. So, if there is only one "Mega Universe" so far, and many dimensions existing within it, could it be that each dimension has their own "mini" Universes contained within them, and so each consequent dimension has its own set of dimensions contained therein, ans so forth onto infinity?

There is much confusion about the meaning of dimension. A dimension in geometric terms (there are meanings in algebraic terms as well) is a precise quality of a directed quantity or parameter, such as displacement or velocity or acceleration.
Mathematically, it has been 'proven' that a 10D universe allows all physical phenomena observed to become encapsulated in a selfconsistent and iterative formulation of archetypes and symbols.

It is true, that there exists a 26D superstructure in terms of a mathematical construct of what is called a Bosonic Superstring (Boson means integer spin and Fermion means halfinteger spin).
The 26D bosonic superstring manifests mathematically as a anticlockwise quantum spin patterns in 26D.
However clockwise spin patterns in 10D allow those 26D counterclockwise spin pattern to become 'collapsed' or conifolded or absorbed by a HYBRID HETEROSIS and then it crystallizes (through complicated advanced algebraic manipulations and formulations), that there can only be 10 string dimensions and 11 membrane dimensions to 'keep' the mathematics selfconsistent and elegant.

Some 'New Age' ideas of 15D and 33D and such are remnant of an older edit and retranslation of archetypes, such as for example the Urantia Channelings which posited Jesus as the sole occupant of the 15D then increasing his scope of interaction into the lower dimensions.
Things like these have more relevance to say the Tarot archetypes and numerological and alphanumeric systems, than physics applied to the cosmology and cosmogony of the universe.
Many aspiring cosmologists, not so familiar with the mathematical archetypes and their physical applications, have continually mixed the older archetypes of the human collective histories, without a clear understanding of those archetypes and symbols.

Is this what Nassim haramein calls a fractal holographic Universe?

Yes, I am in large agreement with the works of Haramein and Elizabeth Rauscher.
I have written a published critique here: http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder7.pdf and
http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder6.pdf .

Talking about Nassim's theory, I know you wrote a paper about it and have yet to read it for lack of time really, but I will asap....tell me.... what are the aspects in his reasoning that you find lacking?

Nassim isn't really lacking in his approach. His latest paper on the Black Hole Proton is conceptually on the right track; but his insistence of replacing the nuclear gauge interactions with gravity is premature and fails to take into account just how the nuclear gauges relate to the electromagnetism-gravitation gauge coupling/unification.
Similarly his scale reduction of the universe from the cosmic- and supercluster scale to the Planck scale is again 'on the mark'; but neglects the possibility of the Planck-Scale itself being a 'family of say Planck-scales'. This then become the five superstring classes linked to the Platonic Solids and the 'sacred geometry'. There is reference to this in one of the papers linked above.

I can tell he is much more esoteric than he probably cares to show outwardly, and perhaps this is the reason I know he is in the right track. What do you think of him?

As said, I fully agree with his approach to unification via the holofractal universe. Unlike myself, he has however entered the 'public arena' and so he is required to show 'temperance' in the presentation of his theories, so as not to alienate the academic peergroups.

I always knew intuitevly since I was a child that everything was alive and has a center, so I understood his black whole/white whole notion with whole replacing "hole". Someone asked him if he believed in the "Hollow Earth" theory and he said yes but not as expansive as to be able to encompass an entire "world", because it was indeed hollow however its center was only a few centimeters in diameter.

Smart Alexis isn't he. He knows what I tried to share on this forum and something which was misunderstood by the many here.

The Black Hole equivalent of the Earth, the entire earth, is a golfball sized Interdimensional Black Hole.
Here is the calculation, using the Schwarzschild base metric of General Relativity:

Mass of the Earth=6x10^24 kg and the Schwarzschild Metric is Curvature-Radius=2GM/c^2 with G the Newton Gravity Constant and c the Speed of Light.

Curvature Radius of the Earth so is: 2(6x10^-11)(6x10^24)/9x10^16~8 millimeters.
String-parametrically, G is increased by about 60% and so the diameter of the golfball earth as a higherD Black Hole, containing ALL the Earth's mass and ALL of its physical 'consciousness' information so becomes about 2.6 centimeters, i.e the golfball size.

Now, I know the earth and all planets, Suns etc. are hollow and have worlds within and my idea is that they are there but at a higher frequency. What are your thoughts on this?

As said, and Nassim knows this too. The PHYSICAL earth is NOT hollow, but in the inter-higherD aspects it is, because the data can be compressed to the centimeter scale.
For the Sun the 'hollowness' would be a diameter about 10 kilometers wide.
So drilling holes into the interior, one might find human or alien constructed tunnels and caves, but one will not find entire civilisations of reptoids and Agarthians.
The reptoids and Agarthians are THERE, but not in 3D, but in 4D, the 4D being the technical extension of the 3-ball (Volume of a sphere in 4pi.R^3/3) becoming the Boundary of a 4-ball (Volume of a torus in 2pi^2.R^3) as the 4D-volume of a hypersphere (Volume pi^2.R^4/2).

So your ideas of the 'higher frequency' become the 'lesser densities' of the 4D compared to the 3D as the 'greater volume' of the 'higher dimensions'.

What will happen with this 3D core at the exact moment of convergence? Will it be turned inside out?

You've got it! Written like a Thuban physicist.
This Black Hole, which IS mathematically equivalent to a White Hole by definition; will wormhole tunnel itself.
This flipping inside-out will 'rupture' the spacetime fabric at the center of the earth and then 'reglue' itself.
This is the fulfilment prophecy, stating that the 'old earth and the old heaven' will roll up like a scroll to give way to a new earth and a new heaven and similar.
This process will OPEN the door to the 4th dimension and to the Volume of 3D will become added a 4D vector as the replacement of the old Minkowski Timecoordinate of the old 4-Vector of velocity, say made up as the lightspeed hypotenuse c^2 being a space-component XYZ and a Timecomponent T in c^2=(X^2+Y^2+Z^2)-(iT)^2.

If this happens will this act as a wornwhole and take all physicallity into the higher dimensions? Will this mean that there won't be a 3D Earth after this event? There is the idea that the 3D Gaia will always be there just that it won't be noticeable to the ascended ones but I thought that even from a 3rd Dimensional perspective all "beings" are always in constant evolution including planets. Wouldn't it be fair for this planet to finally be over with the 3rd Dimension forever? Wouldn't it be better to have a sister planet outside of herself mirrowing what Gaia is but in the 3rd D for those who need to stay behind?

Julissa I am rather impressed with your logic and deductiveness. You basically understand the process.
You must have been to Thuban a number of times in your superluminal travellings.
The 3D earth will still be there, but instead of being all that is for the 3D perceivers; the 4D earth will have 'opened' 4D and so allow access for all those Terrans, which are able to RESONATE with the 4D energy realms.
The Shadow Earth is Earth itself, the mirror being the divide between the 3D and the 4D. Nibiru=Serpentina, the New Earth encompassing the Old Earth. There will be no poleshift geographically and there will be no celestial planet coming to earth to 'check up' on the 'silly humans'.
The poleshift is the 'turning inside-out' of the Gaian-Data collected over almost 26,000 years and the incoming 'ancient ones' is the message from Hunab Ku travelling from the center of the galaxy to the earth's center to TRIGGER the wormhole physics.

There so shall be TWO humanoid races inhabiting Gaia-Serpentina in the Old Humans unable to access 4D and the StarHumans who can access 4D.
Because the StarHumans will be like Jesus post the resurrection (yes, denying this and the Christ-Melchizedek agenda in the scriptural fulfilment sense will automatically keep one in 3D) and able to LEAVE 3D, say in walking through walls (the physics of this advanced quantum wave mechanics and in no way supernatural btw), many of the 4D Starhumans will often appear to the 3D humans as having disappeared.
Spacecraft and similar will also materialise from 4D into 3D in the corrollary to this.
The 'new' stewardship for the 'new earth' will take quite some time to manifest, but the basic structure of reality perception will change basically overnight. I will not elaborate on this for the present time, except saying that the StarHumans will have a lot of fun interacting with the 3D Humans.

Wait a minute I just thought of something...will she be spliting up just like a cell does in cell "division" or should I say replication, when a baby is forming? In this sense she will be "growing" a higher aspect of herself? Is there something from the Thuban library that would explain what will explain about this? What will happen with the 3D Core of the Earth?

Again, you've found the correct interpretation and as elaborated upon in the above.

Thank you very much for your time and effort in sharing information. You are like a well that quenches the thirst of the wanderer. May God grant you all you desire and more.

'He' is rather 'happy' with the unfoldments of the data sharing from Thuban so far and 'He' has given me a present in presenting a DaughterSon of hisher able to grasp the 'Story of GodDoG' to such intricate extent.

Thank You Julissa and I have taken the liberty to post our discourse on the forum; hoping that the moderators will allow you to join the forum.

Julissa

AA

migp · 01-25-2010, 09:04 PM

Hi Abraxas,

I wanted to ask you about the information you wanted to communicate to us starting on January 18. I guess that I am one of the persons with less knowledge in this forum. sometimes when reading this thread I feel like I am in a dream within a dream.

Sometimes I feel like a bad entity or being or energy is acting against me. Examples of this can be a wrong phone call very late at night that disturbs my sleep, or my car breaks just when I am starting a new project and I need the car the most, or even when I am trying to meditate (I am learning this) and an unexpected strong wind interrupts my meditation. How can I poroctect myself from this?.

Thanks,

Miguel

Céline · 01-25-2010, 09:48 PM

May all who read this thread know they are loved..for exactly who...they are.

eleni · 01-26-2010, 01:58 AM

Abrax- what do you make of the UFO's orbiting the sun? Do you have any information pertaining to that?

http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19463

realitycorrodes · 01-26-2010, 05:24 AM

abraxasinas

Thank you for your kind reply. I respect your effort , energy and attention.

Please accept my humility for I do not think I am worthy to talk to you.

Your reply to my questions was very generous. I was disappointed by the reply not because there was anything wrong with the answers you gave.

Personally I set myself up for an expectation of revealing new hitherto untold information.

Your information was not new to me.

In fact, in some areas I probably remain open to other possibilities, especially in regard to living without food. Mainly because I have met people who can do this!

In regard to techniques there are secrets about physical techniques that can access states of bliss. I am aware of some, but know people who claim to have others.

I was hoping you were going to reveal step by step some of these actual techniques that are still being kept secret by a hierarchy of gurus etc etc on whatever levels.

Sitting meditating all day for years on end has proven itself to be a rather inefficient technique. Not many graduate with this technique - I know it works but very inefficiently - in terms of the number actually acheiving any results! Is'nt it about time some serious techniques were given out that work instantly.

Wishing you energy to do what makes you happy!

wilsonericq7 · 01-26-2010, 01:30 PM

I have been struggling with the concept of thought (stay with me...)

Questions arise as to the location of thought, which leads to questions of intent and purpose.

Mainstream thought (outside of my own head) holds co-creation as the goal...however the paradox of creating anything in a self-less manner seems tainted with ego.

Is thought imaginary at all? If not, what are we to make of dreams?

If they are not imaginary, yet also not from our ego driven motives...what is the point?

Are we experiencing every thought...at the same time...seperately?

I have come to this: Attention on Intention...and find myself lost

I have read/heard/been told to:

1. Think with the Heart

2. Feel with the Mind

....and have come here for help....as at this time I am stuck with logic and reason.

Is there any hope for someone like me? I'm not sure (eog-mind) if my DNA is ready for ascension, but my heart yearns for it.

How can this be a true desire with out the ego?

Namaste

ellie · 01-27-2010, 01:42 AM

Okay, I am sorry but I cannot wade through 37 pages of a thread, so excuse me if this question has been posted before.

With all the esoteric information you obviously have at your disposal can you explain to me where it is stated ................."144,000 souls will be saved."

Would this mean if 144,000 souls can be found on Gaia to be ready for ascension then that might mean Gaia's people will be saved from nuclear wars and taken out by Nibiru or does it mean that only the 144,000 souls will be saved.

If it is the latter to be the most right (only 144,000 souls will be saved) I find it wanting to say the least because with the billions of people on Gaia right now I know for a fact there are more than 144,000 good souls here who are more than enlightened IMHO.

Is this a question you can answer or not? I have read some prediction threads here and I really wouldn't like nuclear wars and starvation to befall the people, children and little babies of Gaia.

Thank you.

carriblu · 01-27-2010, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellie

Okay, I am sorry but I cannot wade through 37 pages of a thread, so excuse me if this question has been posted before.

With all the esoteric information you obviously have at your disposal can you explain to me where it is stated ................."144,000 souls will be saved."

Would this mean if 144,000 souls can be found on Gaia to be ready for ascension then that might mean Gaia's people will be saved from nuclear wars and taken out by Nibiru or does it mean that only the 144,000 souls will be saved.

If it is the latter to be the most right (only 144,000 souls will be saved) I find it wanting to say the least because with the billions of people on Gaia right now I know for a fact there are more than 144,000 good souls here who are more than enlightened IMHO.

Is this a question you can answer or not? I have read some prediction threads here and I really wouldn't like nuclear wars and starvation to befall the people, children and little babies of Gaia.

Thank you.

seconded. i know a lot of people believe that those who are worthy (have a higher vibe) are the ones ascending.

under this view, is ascension some sort of a reward?

abraxasinas · 01-27-2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carriblu

seconded. i know a lot of people believe that those who are worthy (have a higher vibe) are the ones ascending.

under this view, is ascension some sort of a reward?

Dear carriblu!

The ascension is also a descension. What comes down also goes up.
Just throw a rock into the air and see what happens.

Otherwise my reply to Ellie, should answer your question too.

AA

abraxasinas · 01-27-2010, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellie

Okay, I am sorry but I cannot wade through 37 pages of a thread, so excuse me if this question has been posted before.

With all the esoteric information you obviously have at your disposal can you explain to me where it is stated ................."144,000 souls will be saved."

This is a stereotypical statement, often coloured by religious zealotry Ellie.
EVERYONE is the 144,000, but not many can conceptualise this and so search for something without, that is within.

Would this mean if 144,000 souls can be found on Gaia to be ready for ascension then that might mean Gaia's people will be saved from nuclear wars and taken out by Nibiru or does it mean that only the 144,000 souls will be saved.

As you stated, I have described this in detail a number of times here. Briefly, Nibiru IS Earth as a New StarPlanet. The 144,000 are a daycount as a Mayan baktun and it represents 12 starsigns/tribes of Jacob. So every human is a member of the nonpolitical-geographical ISRAEL. The question and differentiation and polarisation (between the 'sealed' and the 'unsealed') is one of being able to REMEMBER and UNDERSTAND the 'Story'.

If it is the latter to be the most right (only 144,000 souls will be saved) I find it wanting to say the least because with the billions of people on Gaia right now I know for a fact there are more than 144,000 good souls here who are more than enlightened IMHO.

Of course, you have misinterpreted the archetype. The 144,000 also become coupled to 200 million (aliens); all of whom again reside within you in the interdimensional sense.

Is this a question you can answer or not? I have read some prediction threads here and I really wouldn't like nuclear wars and starvation to befall the people, children and little babies of Gaia.

The answer to this is simple. The nuclear holocaust and mass annihilation has already been prevented; say from 1987 onwards, when the human groupmind experienced a 'quantum leap' in its potential group-consciousness (Harmonic Convergence, Berlin Wall Soviet Union. Tiannaman Square, Ayatollah Khomeini, South African apartheid etc. etc.).

Some 'natural' earth changes will occur and with the increasing planetary consciousness shared with the Gaian lifeforms; some people with access to warfare weapons might 'indeed go crazy' and start some devastating actions.
The main motto at this time is one word: SELF RESPONSIBILITY.
I advice you to NOT listen to the fear mongerings on any level; but to attempt to harmonize your emotions and at least to sometimes harbour a kind of 'peace of mind', that you are part of the creator of the universe and precious without comparison.

Thank you.

AA

ellie · 01-27-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

AA

You know, everything you said right there resonates with me, thank you for the time you took to answer me. I felt quite a peace reading your words.

Thank you again.

Ellie.

PS: I am praying for everyone, try to do it everyday.

berathebrain · 01-27-2010, 08:12 AM

Hi Abraxas.

I have always wondered how in the world does the Rodin coil achieves the effects it achieves. Like making a monopole magnet out of a steel bar when a pulsed direct current is running through the coil.
Also, there is this video with Rodin himself, Nassim Haramein and a guy named James (I think that is his name), where James shows how to make a speaker out of a Rodin coil and permanent magnet. What is producing the sound here?
Also, could this coil have something to do with free energy?

Have you heard of Steven Mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvLuQOKOVXQ and his motionless generator, where he somehow draws the energy from the vacuum or from all the electromagnetic frequencies that bombards the Earth all the time. Anyway, I was interested is that some kind of a hoax or it could really be done?

Thank you for your patience with this questions.

truthseeker · 01-27-2010, 02:19 PM

Hi Abraxasinas,

Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians).

I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum).

So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: -

Question 1

Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm plus this beautiful video, http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...90301316220374 from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true.

The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories?

Question 2

The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here, http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events.

If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that.

For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website (http://www.etheric.com/) or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website?

So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective?

Question 3

Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see http://alignment2012.com/ plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun?

Question 4

a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar?

b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)?

c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle?

d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation?

Question 5

What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession.

Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time?

Question 6

My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon.

The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question?

Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation.

Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement?

Question 7

The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.). He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory.

However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga.

John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle?

Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: -

“The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik****, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik****. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik**** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.”

So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE.

So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system.

Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle.

So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent?

Question 8

a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era.

Do you concur with this?

b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments.

Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view?

c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019?

Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special?

d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment?

Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here?

Question 9

Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy.

This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it.

From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years.

However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/idiot.html - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507655.pdf ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane.

Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane.

It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe.

It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is?

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same?

Question 10

It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band.

This reference, http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy.

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone?

Question 11

What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy?

This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030924.html), by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG.

However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423 and http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system.

I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG?

Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...nother-galaxy/).

Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system?

Final Comment

That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me.

It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to.

Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us.

Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer!

I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false.

Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker (Andrew)

Firstlook · 01-27-2010, 02:37 PM

To the above post: Awesome.

eleni · 01-28-2010, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firstlook

To the above post: Awesome.

My thoughts too!

hippihillbobbi · 01-27-2010, 02:59 PM

Abraxas --

Thanks for your answers to my last questions ..... and for all your Other Answers to us all as well!

New questions:

1) What do you mean exactly by the following, "Humanity is the focus point of the entire universal evolvement, not just galactic, not just supergalactic, but universal." ? Does this have anything to do with "the whole only being as strong as its weakest part?" Or the fact that this earth/consciousness-shift has been planned for so long by the Logos?

2) Since the concept of time is "illusionary," does this imply that polarity (good-bad, etc) exists throughout eternity?

3) Will every soul eventually be reunited with its source .... and if so, what do people mean when they say things like, "they will return to their source as space dust", seeming to imply an inferior state to other ways-of-being "joined to the Creator"?

4) Is John, the "beloved disciple," truly the author of Revelations?

Many thanks, AA!

hippihill

abraxasinas · 01-28-2010, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippihillbobbi

Abraxas --

Thanks for your answers to my last questions ..... and for all your Other Answers to us all as well!

New questions:

1) What do you mean exactly by the following, "Humanity is the focus point of the entire universal evolvement, not just galactic, not just supergalactic, but universal." ? Does this have anything to do with "the whole only being as strong as its weakest part?" Or the fact that this earth/consciousness-shift has been planned for so long by the Logos?

One cannot fault your intuition hippihill.
Yes, the Logos which you may understand as the Intelligence of the Heart of Jesus incarnate; is cosmic as an universal archetype.

The Earth is the focus for the physical manifestation of this Logos.
So Yeshuah the One Logos seeks to 'extend the family of the Logii' in himsherself manifesting as the One in Many.
Doing this will allow the ABBA, the Cosmic Father to for the first time ever in the history of the metaphysical universe (the physical universe is a subset of the metaphysical one) to become a GrandFather.

So the 'One Son of God' is required to have children of his own and those children are the 'Sheep of the Good Shepherd' as encoded and hitherto mistranslated by all 'readers' and 'analysers' of those encodements.

All the 'Sheep' able to recognize the One Logos within themselves, will BECOME Logii of the ABBA themselves and so become able to multiply the One Universe in Multiverses, using however the existing Oneness of the Logos as their own Kernel or Seed.

2) Since the concept of time is "illusionary," does this imply that polarity (good-bad, etc) exists throughout eternity?

As a context for the unity to exist in this is necessary.
The difference is however the KNOWING of the polarity (The Real Knowledge of Good and Evil as encoded) and thePHYSICAL 'Compressed and Concentrated' EXPERIENCING of this polarity.

Gaia, to become the Cosmic Mother of All That Is, took it upon herself to SERVE as the 'collector bottle' for this physical suffering and experiencing, known as the 'Path of a galactic civilisation in selfforgetfulness - a Humanity Lost'.

This is what the Birth of the Baby of the StarHumanity implies.

This birth will end the 'collecting of the bad vibrations say' and reverse the 'collecting sink' or planetary Black Hole into a planetary White Hole as a 'data emitter' releasing all of this collected negativity back into the cosmos just like a 'Horror Movie' which then can be watched by ALL OTHERS. The ETs so will NEVER have to experience physical selfdestructions as experienced by humanity and the Gaian lifeforms; because THEY can 'watch the movies' of Gaian History and LEARN from that how NOT to BE a galactic sentient civilization.

3) Will every soul eventually be reunited with its source .... and if so, what do people mean when they say things like, "they will return to their source as space dust", seeming to imply an inferior state to other ways-of-being "joined to the Creator"?

The 'space dust' simply refers to the mortality of bodyforms and the 'star dust' has become a label for the immortality of the bodyform by certain practitioners of the translators of the cosmic universal archetypes.

Do you think or feel that God will 'chuck' parts of herhis body form away as 'bad' and not belonging?
It is fear mongering and a derivative from the symbols about the 'Last Judgement' of the Logos between the right sheep and the left goats.
This 'Last Judgement' archetype refers to your 'false images' of yourself and not to separate entities or beings.

It is like you put a photo of you on the wall and you 'hate' this picture of you as it does not accentuate your nice pretty looks and say sexy qualities.
So you decide to take another photo of you to replace the one you don't like.
You then chuck the 'old picture' in the 'Lake of Fire and Brimstone' and 'show off' your new picture.

The Unification of yourselfd requires your 'fake selfimage' to be destroyed and this is the meaning of scriptures, when it says: 'Two are in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left behind'.
You are both; you and your shadow say or your yang as the Brimstone and your Yin as the Fire. Your Logos, copied or obtained from the One-Logos will then be the Lake containing BOTH your Yin and yourt Yang fully expressed.
All false images will 'burn forever in the hell' within yourself, as you then have graduated to be the Creator of your own Hell fieryness and your own Heaven icyness. You will become a MasterDevil and a asterAntiDevil subject to your choosings and your One-To-One partnership as an Individuated Logos with the Common Logos, common to All.

4) Is John, the "beloved disciple," truly the author of Revelations?

Yes, he is!

Many thanks, AA!

hippihill

Abraxas

abraxasinas · 01-27-2010, 09:22 PM

Hi Abraxasinas,

Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians).

I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum).

So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: -

Question 1

Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm plus this beautiful video, http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...90301316220374 from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true.

The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories?

Hi Andrew!

There are aspects of the Hannes Alfven cosmology which are a definite part of the Thuban cosmology; such as the integalactic magnetic fields, plasma waves and the general ubiquosity of electric currents in the universe. The manifestation of those physical phenomena are however a consequence and emergent from the standard mainstream models and in no manner require abandonment of well founded topics such as neutron stars, Big Bang Cosmogenesis and the 'dark energy' 'missing mass' scenarios (also see later answers).

The 'Electric Universe' manifests via the actual emergence of inertia from a noninertial (you may term it electric in the permittivity of 'free space') pecursor, we call gravita.
This then becomes the reason for Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.

Here are some links as to the Nature of Mass/Inertia as Monopolic Electricity.

http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder9.pdf

http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder7.pdf

Question 2

The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here, http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events.

If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that.

For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website (http://www.etheric.com/) or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website?

So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective?

We would agree on the general idea of the cosmic rays as being emitted from the galactic center as a 'collective group consciousness' (see answers to later questions); but would not support the substitution of the Mother Black Hole by a Mother Star. The Thuban astrophysics is fully founded and based on the basic solution of Einstein's field equations of General Relativity in the Schwarzschild metric and so the Black Hole astrophysics of curved spacetime and gravitation on all levels.
The cosmic rays are actually a spectrum of high energy superstring classes as a remnant of the inflationary epoch preceeding the Big Bang Standard Cosmogenesis of a thermodynamic expansion of a Black Body Planck Radiator (following a de Broglie MatterWave Inflaton-Instanton).

So generally we do not support the LaViolette cosmology in its mainstream deviation.

Question 3

Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see http://alignment2012.com/ plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun?

Yes, this is an acceptable wording.

Question 4

a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar?

The 8x8=64 Cycles of the Metamorphosis of the Human Chrysalis
with the link below in b)indicates an Afterthought in InSpaceTime creating the Chrysalis fom the Logos of the Forethought in NoSpaceTime.

b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)?

http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id179.html

c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle?
Yes, one fifth of 65 baktuns in 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 kin/days.

d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation?

Some Maya are free to carry different viewpoints from other Maya; just as is everyone else.
The Thuban perspective considers this the end of the 5th cycle.

Question 5

What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession.

Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time?

65 baktuns are 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 days for 25,626.8096 civil (Gregorian) years.
Yes, we agree with your statement, that the precessional rates are not constant over lengthy periods of time. That is why we term it THIS precessional Cycle of 65 baktuns and refrain from extrapolating this cycle onto earlier time periods.

Question 6

My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon.

The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question?

Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation.

Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement?

We agree with your description and emphasize that BOTH and other cycles are relevant. That is why we term it THIS precessional Cysle of 65 baktuns and refrain from extrapolating this cycle onto earlier time periods. There are also 'Wandering Planets', such as Neptune, now becoming mainstreamed in the availability of better technology to track such orbital dynamics and deviations.

Question 7

The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.). He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory.

However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga.

John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle?

Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: -

“The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik****, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik****. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik**** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.”

So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE.

So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system.

Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle.

So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent?

Not as much contradiction, but perception and analysis in encompassments.

How did the Maya know the 'End of Time' and the ending of the Great Cycle of the human presence on Gaia?
Some of my discourse is a little technical, describing calendrical systems and such; but it is given to show how the Mayan Calendar is correlated with the Gregorian one, the latter being the scientifically accepted standard of today's timekeeping.

The Great Platonic Year utilises the change of 1 degree per 72 years or 50 arcseconds per year to specify a complete transversion of the Zodiac of the Milky Way in 72x360=25,920 years for a precessional cycle.
For comparison the angular sizes of the sun and the moon coincide at 0.5 a degree, so allowing the possibility of annular eclipses to occur.

But this precessional cycle changes, being constant in approximately 41,000 year periods and as an effect of the 'wobbling' of the earth's axis due to its deviation from exact sphericity.
Gaia as a planet is flattened at the poles to form the geometry of an oblate ellipsoid and this geoemetry results in precession of the polar axis, tracing out an ellipsoid about the celestial poles.

This precession then changes over great time periods in the interaction of the sun, the moon, other planets and the possible interaction with gravitating extrasolar bodies such as asteroids and comets.

The present calculated rate of precession is about 71.6 years per degree or 50.3 arcseconds per year and so for a reduced Platonic Year of 25,765 years.

Because the moon is receding from the earth due to tidal effects at about 38 millimeters per year or 38 kilometers per megayear, the precessional duration would increase substantially over timespans measured in millions of years. But this rate is halved to about 20 millimeters per year so 600 Million years ago, when a solar year was about 400 days for about 22 hours in a day.

The tracking of the celestial movements are the basis for cyclicities and the invention of calendars.
A Tropical Year of 365.24219 mean solar days (msd) describes the movement of the Earth in orbit about the sun relative to the vernal equinox and because of precession the Tropical Year is about 20 minutes shorter than the Sidereal Year of 365.25636 msd and which measures the earth's orbit relative to the 'fixed' stars.

Elliptical precession relative to the fixed stars requires about 112,000 years to complete a cycle and the Anomalistic Year of 365.25964 msd relative to the sun's perihelion adds another 21,000 years to 133,000 years to correlate the three different years.

An Eclipse Year of 346.62003 msd specifies the interval between successive passages of the sun through a given node of the moon's orbit and as the lunar nodes move westwards by over 19 degrees per year in regression, the Saros Cycle of just over 18 years and of 223 lunations or 6585.32 msd closely approximate 19 Eclipse Years of 6585.78 msd.

The difference of 0.46 of a msd then indicates the reoccurrence of the saros eclipses on a location shifted westwards by so 135 degrees.
The saros cycle was known to the Maya, the Babylonians and to the ancient astronomers of human prehistory.

Related to the Saros Cycle is the Metonic Cycle, known to Greek and Hebrew calendar makers and correlating the 19-year-cycle of lunations to 19 Tropical Years with 235 Synodic Months, each of 29.53059 msd to within 2 hours.

This then is compared to the Civil Year of 365.2425 mean solar days and based on the Julian Year of a Century of 100x365.2425=36,524.25 mean solar days.

But for the recent human history, a greater cycle of 133,000 years can now be used to specify this human evolvement to the present nexus point in linearly measured calendrical time.

About 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics are found in the archaeological fossil record and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthal Man had largely disappeared from Asia and by 30,000 years ago slowly became extinct in Europe.
About 100,000 years ago existed the largest primate hitherto identified.
Gigantopithecus Blackii was over 3 meters tall and weighed up to 600 kilograms and fossils were found in Southeast Asia.

The earliest Homo Sapiens Sapiens characteristics are found in the fossil record at so 100,000 years ago and the cultural leap into cave paintings and art began so 30,000 years ago with the great change from hunter gatherer to farmer and domesticator coincides with the holocene era of 10,000 years ago.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are the matrilineal and patrilineal most common recent ancestors for all living humans today, using genetic markers and molecular clocks to trace genetic variations back in time. Nuclear DNA is subject to variation, whilst the mitochondrial DNA of the ovum is relatively stable and the mutation rate on the Y-chromosome is relatively constant.
Mitochondrial Eve so is said to have lived about 140,000 years ago near Ethiopia in Africa.
Y-chromosomal Adam is said to be at least 30,000 years younger than Mitochondrial Eve and perhaps only 60,000 years old and also from Africa.
The oldest homo sapiens fossil dates to 160,000 years ago and as classified by the Herto find of 2003. It is also said, that the Neanderthals split from a common ancestry with the Homo sapiens genus about 300,000 years ago and that the genetic evidence points to a Homo Sapiens origin in the African savannah so 200,000 years ago.

The Mayan understanding now relates the evolutionary leap from Homo Sapiens from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens or 'Wise Man' to FIVE Great Ages and given in the recent precessional supercycle.

133,000 years become 129,600=5x25,920 Platonic Cycles using a precessional average of 1 degree per 72 years.

Twelve Platonic Cycles are 311,040 years and 311,040 years ago the DNA-architecture of what was to evolve into Modern Man became INDUCTED by what is mythologically called 'Lemurian Root-Soul-Energy' and also as the 'giants' and the 'Sons of God' impregnating the 'Daughters of Man', say as in your Genesis encodings Genesis.6.2-4.
You might now understand that this encoding describes something before the Noahic 'Great Flood' and something after the 'perfect ten Noahic generations' redefined the 'Age of Man' as 120 years from a previous 'longer lived' generation and bounded by Methuselah's 969 years as the 'oldest man' who ever lived.

So now some of you may understand the archetype of the 'Great Flood' as the nexus point in the human history, when a previous hominoid evolution became terminated and replaced with a new one.
The previous hominoid generation was Homo Erectus culminating in the Lemurian archetype and then continuing in a multifaceted fashion with concurrent homninoids like Homo Neanderthalensis and 'great apes' like Gigantopithecus and after having itself evolved from Homo Habilis and Australopithecine ancestors dating back so 12 Grand Cycles earlier to 12x311,040=3,732,480 years.
This then is the reason as to why the Gaian anthropologists date the emergence of the Australopithecine human ancestry to about 4 Million years -13 Grand Cycles are 4,043,520 years.

The Solar System was created 5 Billion years ago and it took until 130,000 years ago to evolve Modern Man from Gaia's primeval and elemental beginnings.
The Mayan so manipulates the archetypical matrix of time to specify the first Platonic cycle as the reformation of a cosmic identity in utitility of the 10 principalities of the cosmogenesis applicable to the univere and all its substructures, such as a planetary evolvement in self-consciousness.

Application of the 10th principle metamorphoses the Old Identity as the 1st principle into a New Identity using the 9 Timelords as the means for this transformation.

So the Maya calls the first Platonic cycle the Age of Capricorn, thus labeling the 10th element of a zodiacal identity as rootreduction 10=1+0=1 and as mapped in the starry constellations of the Mazzaroth and of the ancient understandings.

The Platonic Age of Capricorn so began, when historical man Homo Sapiens differentiated from his environment and first became 'different' from its homo relatives, like Homo Neanderthalensis.

This and all other Platonic cycles can then be compared to similar 'Great Years' such as the Yugas in the Hinduistic reckonings.

The Satya Yuga as the Spiritual Age of Gold and of Meditation (Dhyana) lasts 4800 years in descent and is followed by the Treta Yuga as the Mental Age of Silver and of Sacrifice (Yajna), lasting 3600 years in descent.
The Dvapara Yuga as the Emotional Age of Bronze and of Worship (Archana) lasts 2400 years in descent and is followed by the Kali Yuga as the Physical Age of Iron and of Alms (Daana), lasting 1200 years in descent into Materialism, before ascending again for a similar period of time.
The overall descent from Spiritual Understanding to Materialistic Knowledge so becomes 12,000 years followed by a matching ascent from the physical to the spiritual rebirth.

The 'Day of Brahman' is said to be about 1017 seconds, which is the Age of the Universe, 6x1017 seconds being 20 billion years.
The 'Age of Brahman' then relates this age of physical cosmic existence to spiritual preexistence in the factor 1022/1017=105 and where the light invariance c=wavelengthxfrequency specifies this factor in the inversion constant 1/c=1022/(3x1030)=1022x(3.33x10-31)=3.33x10-9 and so as 1022=Inverse Timeinstanton/c=Source-Frequency/c as the 'Age of Brahman'.

Question 8

a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era.

Do you concur with this?

Yes.

b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments.

Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view?

The Mayan master timeline spans five great cycles of longcounts; each longcount being comprised of 13 baktuns, each baktun encompassing 144,000 kin or days,and as 20 katuns of 7,200 kin each.

It is the 65th and final baktun, which defines the 'birth of the starhuman' archetype to replace the older 'human' archetype initiated 5x13x144,000 kin or 9,360,000 days before the nexus date of December 21st, 2012.

As the sun's angular diameter is about 0.53 degrees, the Maya calculated the ending of their longcount in the last cycle of the winter-summer solstices as a function of the Mayan Precessional 'Great Platonic Year' of 25,626.81 kin (or civil Gregorian days).
A precessional degree then becomes 9,360,000/360=26,000=71.1856.x365.2425 days and so in the Mayan kin count, 71.1856 civil years specify a 1-degree precession and the galactic synchronisation at the winter solstice will be 71.1856x0.53=37.728 civil years for the solar transit across the galactic centre.

The Maya obtained the longcount from the 'hermetic' tradition (of the Plumed Serpent Melchizedek) of Kukulkan (or Quetzalcoatl in the Aztec parallel) and this 'prophecy' relates directly to a scripturally encoded 'day count' of 12,000+1,600=13,600 days in a 'furlong' count of measuring the 'inside' and the 'outside' of the 'great city' {John.2.21;Revelation.11.1-2;14.20;21.16} as the 'Temple of God'.
These 13,600 days from December 21st, 2012 will specify September 12th, 1975 as the beginning of the 37.728 civil year period of 13,780 days, then ending 180 days after that date on June 19-21, 2013, which is the following summer solstice in the 21-23 December, 2012 variation.
The midpoint is 18.864 civil years from either end and pinpoints 6,890 days from September 12th, 1975 on 24th July 1994.
The 'Beginning of the 'Age of Aquarius' is then scripturally determined within the last of the 20 katuns of 7,200 days or 19.713 civil years beginning on this April 5th, 1993 (20 civil years as 20x365+5=7,200+105 days and ending on April 6th, 2013.
This shall be further detailed in the timeline agenda, but engages the 105 days of 'Noah's daycount' (in Genesis) from the sending of the Raven of the Tarrying and the Dove of Peace to the Rainbow Covenant.

The 'Beginning of the Age of Aquarius' and as a 'Lower Bound' so is dated to the 'transition of the Sun from Capricorn into Aquarius on January 20th, 1998 and an exit from Aquarius on February 18th, 1998 and as 3.5 years from the midpoint date to specify a 7-year period archetypically characterising the galactic synchronisation scripturally and prophetically.
July 24th, 1994 plus 3.5x360=7x180=1260 days for January 5th, 1998 and a date to which are added 15 days as the encoded 'hour of the beast' in the proportion 1 day/24 hours=360days/15days and the dayyears encoded in Ezekiel.
This 'addition' then becomes 'natural' in the Gregorian calendar of 365.2425 days as compared to the Ancient calendar of 360 days in the 18 days as the differential between the two calendars (360x3.5+18=365x3.5+0.5) and the halfweek addition/subtraction of 3.5 days (see timeline agenda).
The 'Upper Bound' for the 'Beginning of the Age of Aquarius' must so engage the solar transit from Aquarius into Pisces in a mirror image for the 'Lower Bound' situated at the midpoint of the center of February 3rd, 2005 to assign this 'Upper Bound' the civil date February 19th, 2012 and so a 14-year superposition (2x7=14 proportionalises 2x18.864=37.728) for the 'Aquarian Transit' from 1998 to 2012 and as the galactic synchronisation of the galactic center 'Hunab Ku' with the Sun 'RahSol'.

Overall however, in the Mayan longcount September18th,1618 began this last baktun of 144,000 days. This is 25 years and 108 days or 9,239 kin before the birth of Isaac Newton on January 4th, 1643 as the onset of the 'Age of Reasoning' and science-based Enlightenment in the scientific methodology and a 'Renaissance of Rationality', say as instigated by Galileo Galilei (February15th,1564-January 8th,1642).

It would be this 'last' baktun or a 395-year period from 1618 to 2013, which would refine and finetune the human reasoning mind to gather enough data to 'finally' allow a full remembrance of its UnTimed collective reality in nospacetime and where 391 years from 1618 define the Year of the beginning manifestation for the 'Trial of Humanity' in 1618+391=2009.

c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019?

Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special?

Yes, additionally to the above; the timeline in the Great Pyramid also (from the so called Great Step) also points to the 2012/2013 period and most important from the Thuban perspective, the prophetic timelines in the Logos descriptive 'scriptures' converge and synthesize in a precise daycount of 1600 from August 4th, 2008 to December 21st, 2012.

d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment?

See above. The 'Age of Aquarius' can be said to begin January 20th, 1998 in the solar transit from Capricorn into Aquarius.

Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here?

The 'Great prophetic timeline' began September 12th, 1975 and ends August 4th, 2013 for a 'weaning' of the StarHuman Baby, born on the Mayan solstice date.

Question 9

Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy.

This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it.

From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years.

However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/idiot.html - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507655.pdf ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane.

Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane.

It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe.

It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is?

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same?

When the universe was 236.5 million years old at a cosmological redshift of 7.477; the universe was the scale of what today is known as a galactic suprcluster. A galactic supercluster has so a diameter of so 473 million lightyears and represents the gravitational interaction limit.
The Copernican Principle of Cosmology states, that the universe beyond this boundary scale will be isotripic and homogenous (looking the same in all directions and having the same texture or pixel structure say).

A massless universe can be described as a Mother-Black Hole with a curvature radius of 16.9 billion lightyears and so the Daughter-Black Hole of radius 236.5 million lightyears as a supercluster Black Hole equivalent willso carry 'missing mass' and 'dark energy' (actually a form of stationary 'auric' lightmatrix as a 'space filling' consciousness).

So to close the universe as a selfcontained unity, the massless mother BH interacts with the inertial daughter carrying the entire mass-seed of the creation (Big Bang) within it and characterizing the 236.5 million year marker.

This marker so is a template or blueprint for the later much expanded universe and holofractalises again in galactic subsystems from supercluster to group to galaxy to starsystem to platery system to continents etc. etc.

In particular the gravity bound holographs itself in a template galaxy like the MWG in the solar systems orbit fractalising the Period of the orbit as the cosmic time of the manifestation of the 'master template'. So period T=1/f=2pi/w=236.5 million years.

To give specific values for galactic parameters is unwarranted in the deeper sense, as the galaxies supplement their baryonic luminous parameters with nonluminous 'consciousness energy' or 'haloes'. So for example the MWG halo interacts peripherally with the halo of Andromeda, its approaching sister galaxy so 2.6 million lightyears away. Generally, the MWG is 100,000 lightyears across and 1,000 lightyears thick in the luminosity and the distance between the galactic center and the Sun is 9,360,000 lightdays as defined by the present precessional cycle.

Question 10

It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band.

This reference, http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy.

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone?

Atlas-Pleione-Alcyone-.. are labels for a very potent archetype for the Seven Sisters. This archetype is a hologram which can be mapped and mirrored onto any consciousness able to acknowledge the manifesto of this symbol, say as the Pleiades. The photon-belt so is NOT a 3D physical phenomenon, but a consciousness, defined in the gauge physics of the coupling between the light parameters and the inertia parameters. We term it the RestMassPhoton or RMP as the 'Particle of Consciousness'.
Then the 'photion belt' energy is real in a 4D sense in terms of said RMPs, but is not in any way some physical or electromagnetic field interacting with rotating dynamical systems of astrophysics.

The Seven Sisters so can easily 'energize'; seven continents or seven oceans or seven chakras or seven somethings upon Gaia or any other place 'consciously' energized by RMPs.

Question 11

What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy?

This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030924.html), by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG.

However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423 and http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system.

I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG?

Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...nother-galaxy/).

Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system?

Just as the MWG is a template galaxy, so is the local Rahsol starsystem a blueprint Star System so is Gaia a template Planetary-Moon System. They are all holograms of each other and all have formed from the Galactic nebula labeled the MWG.

Final Comment

That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me.

It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to.

Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us.

Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer!

I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false.

Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker (Andrew)

Yes, I agree with your final comment and thank you for your efforts of asking such detailed questions, which I have tried to answer in similar style.

AA

Phtha · 01-28-2010, 06:29 AM

Fascinating discourse that was!

I have a question about the various 'ages of enlightenment'. Using the Yugas as an example, what would be the cause or the mechanism that changes our 'levels of awareness' so to speak. Was this hard coded within our dna? Or is it due to some sort of Solar or cosmic rayes that effect the mass consciousness? Or perhaps it is more of a 'mundane' reason such as the suppression of knowledge? Obviously on a broader scale it is due to a Divine plan, but I'm just curious as to what the physical mechanism is to carry it out.

And for a somewhat unrelated question, I'm just curious about 5500 year time frame mentioned in the First Book of Adam and Eve from the Apocrypha, as God said this would be the duration of the Fall into matter from the Garden of Eden. Is this based on a cycle of some sort?

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

The Satya Yuga as the Spiritual Age of Gold and of Meditation (Dhyana) lasts 4800 years in descent and is followed by the Treta Yuga as the Mental Age of Silver and of Sacrifice (Yajna), lasting 3600 years in descent.
The Dvapara Yuga as the Emotional Age of Bronze and of Worship (Archana) lasts 2400 years in descent and is followed by the Kali Yuga as the Physical Age of Iron and of Alms (Daana), lasting 1200 years in descent into Materialism, before ascending again for a similar period of time.
The overall descent from Spiritual Understanding to Materialistic Knowledge so becomes 12,000 years followed by a matching ascent from the physical to the spiritual rebirth.

The 'Day of Brahman' is said to be about 1017 seconds, which is the Age of the Universe, 6x1017 seconds being 20 billion years.
The 'Age of Brahman' then relates this age of physical cosmic existence to spiritual preexistence in the factor 1022/1017=105 and where the light invariance c=wavelengthxfrequency specifies this factor in the inversion constant 1/c=1022/(3x1030)=1022x(3.33x10-31)=3.33x10-9 and so as 1022=Inverse Timeinstanton/c=Source-Frequency/c as the 'Age of Brahman'.

abraxasinas · 01-28-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phtha

Fascinating discourse that was!

I have a question about the various 'ages of enlightenment'. Using the Yugas as an example, what would be the cause or the mechanism that changes our 'levels of awareness' so to speak. Was this hard coded within our dna? Or is it due to some sort of Solar or cosmic rayes that effect the mass consciousness? Or perhaps it is more of a 'mundane' reason such as the suppression of knowledge? Obviously on a broader scale it is due to a Divine plan, but I'm just curious as to what the physical mechanism is to carry it out.

And for a somewhat unrelated question, I'm just curious about 5500 year time frame mentioned in the First Book of Adam and Eve from the Apocrypha, as God said this would be the duration of the Fall into matter from the Garden of Eden. Is this based on a cycle of some sort?

Hi Phtah!

To both of your question I have no specific answer, as the reply you are addressing is not Thuban data as say a revision of basic semiotiks, but are simple statements of the common translation of the archetypes by particular and incomplete schools of philosophy (the labels of the Yugas and the apocrypha).

Iow, your take on these data bases are as valid as anything I could assess in alaysis under the criteria of the said material under its own parameters.

Generally so, there are no'rays of enlightenment' from the cosmos or such - there is consciousness activating from a 'hidden library' within. Therefore the 'rays of enlightement' also derive from within and not from without.
Data like the Yuga data or the Thuban data can serve as a trigger for remembrances of the 'data from within' and nothing more.

AA

Phtha · 01-29-2010, 11:21 PM

Cheers Sirebard.

A sweet paradox.
Search without' to find within'
To learn within' is all without'

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Hi Phtah!

Generally so, there are no'rays of enlightenment' from the cosmos or such - there is consciousness activating from a 'hidden library' within. Therefore the 'rays of enlightement' also derive from within and not from without.
Data like the Yuga data or the Thuban data can serve as a trigger for remembrances of the 'data from within' and nothing more.

AA

Firstlook · 01-29-2010, 11:54 PM

Abraxas,

How are you? I want a great answer for that question.

I thought this might be something interesting:

Tonight is the "wolf" moon.

Quote:

The moon is, on average, 238,855 miles (384,400 km) from Earth. The moon's orbit around Earth – which causes it to go through all its phases once every 29.5 days – is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse. One side of the orbit is 31,070 miles (50,000 km) closer than the other.

So in each orbit, the moon reaches this closest point to us, called perigee. Once or twice a year, perigee coincides with a full moon, as it will tonight, making the moon bigger and brighter than any other full moons during the year.

What would you recommend for our minds to understand this relation better, in light of this closeness?

Our there relations within ourselves that would benefit and help others within this night especially?

Also:

Quote:

The moon illusion

Finally, be sure to get out and see the full moon as it rises, right around sunset. Along the horizon, the moon tends to seem even bigger. This is just an illusion.

You can prove to yourself that this is an illusion. Taking a small object such as a pencil eraser, hold it at arm's length, and compare its size to that of the moon just as it rises. Then repeat the experiment later in the night and you'll see that the moon compares the same in both cases. Alternately, snap two photos of the moon, with a digital camera or your cell phone, when the moon is near the horizon and later when it's higher in the sky. Pull both photos up on your computer screen and make a side-by-side comparison.

Astronomers and psychologists agree the moon illusion is just that, but they don't agree on how to explain it.

Could you ask Thuban about this little "illusion".

I thought it would be silly to ask such a light question at first, but every little thing is what you make it.

Hey thanks Abraxas. Its really great the time you spend here on the forum with the rest of us. I hope you are enjoying from this what you can.

peace