The state of play and 6th dimension STO's...Here and no further..

[ulli]

Any depopulation scheme sounds like Hitler's "Final Solution"
the only proper solution is where the individual has a say in the matter and manner of their own death.

I doubt the PTB have 100% knowledge of where the planet is going.
They refer to prophecy and channels like the rest of us, and that is a foggy area.

The distinction between ET messages and spirit messages is where the answer lies.
Both are valuable. Both have to be examined.
Science and religion in agreement.

[K626]

Posted by ulli (here)
Any depopulation scheme sounds like Hitler's "Final Solution"
the only proper solution is where the individual has a say in the matter and manner of their own death.

I doubt the PTB have 100% knowledge of where the planet is going.
They refer to prophecy and channels like the rest of us, and that is a foggy area.

The distinction between ET messages and spirit messages is where the answer lies.
Both are valuable. Both have to be examined.
Science and religion in agreement.

Agreed.

More truth on the table.
More access to hidden technologies.
More sharing of the positive conscious.

Personally I know the PTB are cluesless as to where the planet is going and in thier lack of wisdom and panick all they can think of is to horde assets and promote short
term naked consumption.

I think everything is still in play.

I think the zero sum game they are trying to make us all believe is a fear promoting lie.

cheers

K

[Isostool]

And oh, I realised I had written 'in the red' in my previous post when it should have read 'in the black'. Makes a difference in what I was trying to say.. I got my economic terms the wrong way around...

Posted by K626 (here)


I think the zero sum game they are trying to make us all believe is a fear promoting lie.

cheers

K

I really don't think they care WHAT you believe. Does it matter? Why would it be relevant to them? It really doesn't matter what kind of emotional state you are in [as in why is making you be afraid even close to being a worthwhile investment], presumably this would have no bearing on an act of depopulation [unless you believe the 'prophecy' or fairytale that they feed off your fear... LOL!!].

And the simulations they are running are not based on prophecy, they are run through EXTREMELY advanced computers. Regardless of what prophecy is thought to be true or relevant, by either you or them, computer simulations are relatively free of them.
And regardless of population growth, the population level right now is an issue as is the consciousness level of this number. Consumption is a problem yes, but NDE's are known to change people's view of how they should be living their life. Giving the planet one would seem a good Idea in this respect.

2010 6,830,586,985 6,908,688,000 6,842,925,208
2015 7,200,008,584 7,302,186,000 7,219,433,211
2020 7,557,514,266 7,674,833,000 7,577,890,552 8,000,000,000
2025 7,892,758,722 8,000,000,000 8,011,533,000 7,905,241,284
2030 8,202,205,367 8,308,895,000 8,199,106,302
2035 8,487,066,951 8,570,570,000
2040 8,748,743,446 8,801,196,000
2045 8,987,418,540 8,996,344,000
2050 9,202,458,484 9,352,000,000 9,149,984,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

population growth rates are reducing as we are getting closer towards the carrying capacity, but the population is not shrinking. It is growing. And it is very much about the population now as a flat number being too great. Those who seek to implement a depopulation scheme understand very well that the economic system is incorrect and that is also sought to be solved, which it will be, I expect. But solving that ALONE still poses too great a risk to the long term viability of the planet without a sufficiently powerful [and temporally condensed perhaps] NDE to change the spiritual maturity level on the whole to a level to something which in every motion supports the continuance of life on this planet.

And yeah, there is another option rather than a short swift knock on the head: A long drawn out suffering death of billions through disease and famine and prolonged suffering, resulting in the absolute decimation of ANY remaining ecosystem as well rendering life in any capacity [perhaps except for some Achaea and random insects!! lol] non able to exist here at all into the future. If this were the case, how selfish of a being apparently so concerned with STO to be so supportive of allowing the entire planet to become unable to support life in general. The shock associated with going the 'long road' would be enough to cause the effect of a NDE, I presume, but the risk of the Earth not surviving is great and not a risk I think any of them are willing to take.

The issue is, I think, that people won't change. Perhaps you might like to understand that you live holistically. Perhaps you know a few others who might like to live that way. At Avalon perhaps there might be a higher than average head count of people who are not adverse to a bit of change, but on the whole people don't want to, they won't, change.

The economic system implemented by the top is holographically held in all parts that do not resist it and/or overcome it. Guilty shmos who participate IN SPIRIT. And in act.... like the tuna trawlers. The loggers. Responding to the economic drive. Would removing the system make them suddenly all ecologically sound? No. It's people like them who created 'the problematic system' in the first place. Remove the system and they will just fill the void with their own, because that is what they are in spirit.

Posted by K626 (here)

Not sure what simulations Atticus and his mates are running but there seems to be another valid argument in this story.

One wonders what the rush is?


cheers

K

And by the way, "All dogs are brown, All brown things are cats, therefore all cats are dogs" is a valid argument. Validity is no measure of being sound. Validity is not a measure about whether the subject matter is accurate or true. Validity is about structure. Soundness is about truth.

Claming you have a valid argument says nothing about if it is true or not. And as for the truth of what you are proposing, how deeply have you analysed that particular proposition? You think they have not examined it?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Isostool (here)
"All dogs are brown, All brown things are cats, therefore all cats are dogs" is a valid argument.

I don't think so .

There could be some black cats, which are not dogs.

I'd guess you got the conclusion flipped around, and meant to say "All dogs are brown, All brown things are cats, therefore all dogs are cats"

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Isostool (here)
Claiming you have a valid argument says nothing about if it is true or not.

Well ... it could be such a claim.

I usually use "valid" to mean "actually fits the facts of the real world", whereas I use "true" to mean "simply logically consistent". This appears to be the opposite of the way you're using the words. I have not read enough of K626's post to know which way he was using the words.

(Sorry - my training in mathematical logic is getting the better of me .)

[Isostool]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Isostool (here)
Claiming you have a valid argument says nothing about if it is true or not.

Well ... it could be such a claim.

I usually use "valid" to mean "actually fits the facts of the real world", whereas I use "true" to mean "simply logically consistent". This appears to be the opposite of the way you're using the words. I have not read enough of K626's post to know which way he was using the words.

(Sorry - my training in mathematical logic is getting the better of me .)

yeah you're right I did get the conclusion round' the wrong way. it should be: All cats are brown, All brown things are dogs therefore all cats are dogs. Also the construct: Some cats are dogs, All dogs are sheep, Therefore some cats are sheep, is a valid argument. Formal logic is a discipine of not just mathematics but formal philosophy... and some people round ere' have degrees in philosophy .... and should know better.. was me point.

The term valid in mathematical logic refers to the logical structure of the argument, in that an argument's structure may be valid, however a valid argument may not be sound as in you can have an argument which is valid BUT untrue. An argument is valid if the premises force a conclusion [the conclusion is entailed by the premises] but it is only a sound argument if the premises are also true as well [entailing a true conclusion]. So claiming that an argument is valid is not arguing that it is sound, contains true premises or true conclusions. So it says nothing about the truth of the claims that you make, only the logical structure.

[Darla Ken Pearce]

For whatever reason, the timeline has been moved up. This is a very good thing. Several bulletins just came out in the last day or two about it. We have also entered Day 3. I posted one about MayDay in the spiritual forum. This means we are very close and something wonderful will happen this month. The New Golden Age beckons us.

How to get ready? This is most of all an inner journey reflected outwardly by our collective consciousness. We don't work out there but inside our own hearts. Then it will be reflected outwardly in the world at large. So be as kind as you can possibly be. Open your heart and be as compassionate to others as possible. Most important, ask your guides and higher power for assistance. They can't help you if you don't ask them directly. It was an agreement made prior to this Earth experience.

It is helpful to stop thinking and being distracted by world events. Everything changes now and that's what we are seeing all over the world. New governments including in the U.S. will be replaced and new evidence will be coming out about what they've been doing against, We the people."

This is how these new changes will get put into effect. Revelations that will greatly shock you and arrests for the wrong doers.
At that point, new prosperity programs will be rolled out. We have everything to look forward to but the most important to us, as individuals, is to work on your own heart and let your light shine. And so it is.... Much love. Be happy! It's a choice. xoxoxox

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Isostool (here)
An argument is valid if the premises force a conclusion [the conclusion is entailed by the premises] but it is only a sound argument if the premises are also true as well [entailing a true conclusion].

You describe the difference between valid and true quite clearly. I agree.

... except for one detail ... I use the words "valid" and "true" in exactly the opposite way you do .

[Isostool]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Isostool (here)
An argument is valid if the premises force a conclusion [the conclusion is entailed by the premises] but it is only a sound argument if the premises are also true as well [entailing a true conclusion].

You describe the difference between valid and true quite clearly. I agree.

... except for one detail ... I use the words "valid" and "true" in exactly the opposite way you do .

Well then Paul if you're making that claim because you, as I do, sometimes get things the wrong way around as a result of mild left right dyslexia, so therefore you are allowed to and leave it that way [which I don't]... [my mother didn't learn to read til' she was 34.. I inherited it in there and it pops up occasionally .. I think the one we have is attached to the maths part of the brain - she was very good at maths.]... then your joke isn't quite being an equal analogue. Or perhaps you are just making the point that you use the terms incorrectly even though you have studied formal logic.. and that's just the way things are for you... and be dammed with the dictionary.

It's not particularly 'the way I do' that is the issue - it is the way these things are defined in formal logic, which can be understood as the benchmark for the definitions of things. So that people use terms consistently. So that therefore people can understand each other while in discussions and debates. You must always have your definitions down... or the debate ends up difficult.. it is more difficult to progress it.

The phrase 'this is a valid argument' is misused, just as is the concept 'begs the question' is always being misused. it doesn't mean 'raises the obvious next question' it means: the premise/s in an argument is similarly unsupported as the conclusion. Claiming validity IS a trivial claim, if you are using an argument's proposed truth as supportive to your conclusion.

So....

- Some countires population growth rate is negative therefore the planet's[all countries] population is not growing?

It is growing. it is just growing less percentage wise. And the thing is with this, is that it is a percentage of an increased base number [measured per annum], that you say facilitates the decreased growth calculation, year to year; so that it can be seen to give the illusion of growing less than it really is in flat numbers. The growth is STILL exponential. This kind of measure can be very deceptive if you aren't aware of the way the base numbers rise each year..... that percentage would be higher if the growth was taken in comparison to the base population the year BEFORE.

This video lecture does a good job of explaining exponential growth:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

- Edumacated countires growth rate is more negative in general than other countries therefore the Earth's population will cease to grow exponentially?

What? if we educate? if we redistribute? Enough time for that is there? Willing to risk it are they? Actually have a say in it do you? Had a say in it in a deeper place than you can voice perhaps. or even think.

- Some countries have negative growth rates therefore the suffering and permanent damage to the ecosystem which occurs as a result of allowing nature to take its course [and even redistributing resources] and overshooting the carrying capacity of the planet [which is generally what happens] is less than can be effectuated by human managed population and ecosystem control.

it doesn't follow.

It's not like we have leeway to overshoot. In an ecosystem there is most times a buffer of some description - species can usually move into the decimated system from related adjoining areas... eventually... perhaps things can be re-established in the environment... life continues.

But the edges of the Earth are all we have. Hit the edge and the collapse is universal - as far as we are concerned. There is no room for error here. There is no second chance. The stakes here are far too high to get it wrong. And your sense of moral right and wrong... so does it appear on the whole that the play of nature agrees with you? Or is it an elaborate design based on purely human polarised 'spirit' ethics?

[K626]

Thanks Paul,Iso and everyone else for making a really good discussion.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NeOMjt9Sczw

[K626]

"There is no food shortage. Even though an estimated one in six people is going hungry, there are more people suffering from obesity than from starvation. The food shortage that does exist in certain parts of the planet, including in some of the wealthiest areas, has to do with what food is being produced, how it is being produced, and what is being done with it.

Over ten percent of the food grown on U.S. farms is plowed under to help control pricing. In the cities, supermarkets often lock their trash bins or use trash compacters to discard food that has expired, is slightly blemished, or damaged. Much of this food is trashed even thought it is still edible. Some stores throw bleach into their dumpsters to discourage people from “dumpster diving.” More than ten percent of food purchased for home use also is thrown away.

In the town where I live I have gotten into packing up my bike basket with fruit and water and then go out and feed the homeless. Along the route I take where I know I will find homeless people, I pass many stores that have locks on their trash bins where expired, blemished, and damaged food is thrown away. They lock the bins so that the homeless and dumpster divers can’t get the food.

But, the stores locking up their trash bins is only a very small part of the problem.

The chemically grown and mass-marketed food industry is a source of massive quantities of pollution that has spread and is spreading throughout not only the surface of the planet, but also into its underground water aquifers, into Earth’s delicate and relatively tin crust, and into the atmosphere surrounding the planet. In fact, more pollution is created as a result of the fast-food, cooked food, and animal-eating diet than any other source. It starts with the farmlands.

The consumption of meat by the affluent people of the planet has a negative impact on the poor because the land used to grow food for people is being taken over by companies involved in growing food for livestock. It is being done by international corporate agricultural businesses. This is helping to create the system and culture of dependency on corporations and on the small number of people who control the global flow of money. It is widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Global trade, free trade, and exclusive contracts in the growing, processing, and distribution of food is negatively impacting family farmers around the planet, often demolishing their way of life.

Over half of the beef from Latin America is exported to more affluent countries. In the U.S., Australia, and Europe more money is spent on one dairy cow per day than what many people in Third World countries live on per month.

“Hunger afflicts more than 800 million people worldwide and kills 24,000 per day. Three fourths are children under five. Chronic hunger causes stunted growth, poor vision, listlessness, and susceptibility to disease.
A major factor is the waste of foodstuffs fed to animals raised for food, rather than to starving people. This was documented in Frances Moore Lappé’s 1972 classic Diet for a Small Planet and was reaffirmed at the 2002 World Food Summit in Rome.
A meat-based diet requires 10 to 20 times as much land as a plant-based diet.
An acre of prime land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 30,000 pounds of carrots, 50,000 pounds of tomatoes but only 250 pounds of beef.”
– Citizens for Healthy Options in Children’s Education, CHOICE.USA; 2006""


cheers

K

[kersley]

Posted by K626 (here)







We are approaching the most important 18months in the history of mankind. The consensus has gathered around 'the pattern'. We have enetered 'the pattern'. The NWo has been given notice that mass depopulation will not be tolerated. Massive and full spectrum intervention will be deployed including the use of full field electromagnetic space based EMV's...

Discuss.

Where are you getting these information from? Because i bumped into an old friend this afternoon, And she tell me that her husband works in the underground bunkers. I said you what?
She explained that he is currently working in Pakistan in the bunkers. Last month he was working in Afganistan. WTF is going .
She said that in these bunkers, There are hospital, dentist, supermarket, it's like a underground city. She also told me that there is a bunker right here in the UK, Ashford Kent. And another in Milton Keynes...???? If there is no mass dpopulation, Then what are we expecting to happen? why are they taking cover?

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THEY ARE GOING UNDERGROUND? AND WHAT ABOUT US? ME AND YOU?

K626. contact your source and ask the above question please.
Thanks

[K626]

The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million
Percentage of corn grown in the US eaten by people: 20
Percentage of corn grown in the US eaten by livestock: 80
Percentage of oats grown in the US eaten by livestock: 95
Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2 point 3 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250
Percentage of US farmland devoted to beef production: 56
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16

The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs a meat-free diet: 3 times more
Percentage of US topsoil lost to date: 75
Percentage of US topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
Number of acres of US forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million
Amount of meat imported to US annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds
Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year

The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3 For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2: 8 times
For women who eat butter and cheese 2-4 times a week: 3: 25 times
Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs sparingly or not at all: 3 point 6 times
The Natural Resources Argument

User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US: livestock production
Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a destroyer
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000
Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13
Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260
Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78
To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by US that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33
Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the US needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2

The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of US antibiotics fed to livestock: 55
Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13
Percentage resistant in 1988: 91
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban
Response of US meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support"

http://www.consumercide.com/js/index...eat-eater.html


cheers

K

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by kersley (here)

Posted by K626 (here)







We are approaching the most important 18months in the history of mankind. The consensus has gathered around 'the pattern'. We have enetered 'the pattern'. The NWo has been given notice that mass depopulation will not be tolerated. Massive and full spectrum intervention will be deployed including the use of full field electromagnetic space based EMV's...

Discuss.

Where are you getting these information from? Because i bumped into an old friend this afternoon, And she tell me that her husband works in the underground bunkers. I said you what?
She explained that he is currently working in Pakistan in the bunkers. Last month he was working in Afganistan. WTF is going .
She said that in these bunkers, There are hospital, dentist, supermarket, it's like a underground city. She also told me that there is a bunker right here in the UK, Ashford Kent. And another in Milton Keynes...???? If there is no mass dpopulation, Then what are we expecting to happen? why are they taking cover?

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THEY ARE GOING UNDERGROUND? AND WHAT ABOUT US? ME AND YOU?

K626. contact your source and ask the above question please.
Thanks

Thanks for your post.

Just keep an eye on this thread fella.

I hold nothing back.

No point.

Be aware I and many others are super-positive about the future of OUR EARTH and mankind.


love

K

[Lettherebelight]

Well put, K626.

People going hungry is not a question of 'Are there just too many people?'....

But more a question of 'Why, why, why.. do politics and business interests stop proper distribution of food in our world?'

[kersley]

@k626.
I hear you and that is my belief also. But to actually meet someone who is connected to such things knocked me back a bit. I will most definitely be watching this space.
K

[K626]

Posted by Lettherebelight (here)
Well put, K626.

People going hungry is not a question of 'Are there just too many people?'....

But more a question of 'Why, why, why.. do politics and business interests stop proper distribution of food in our world?'

Artificially maintained shortages and destroying the means of full production to keep prices high is the basics of the game. Factor in the holding back of technology and information and the hyper-wastage of energy and resources by the West (the building of the average american car can keep 5 average african villages in food, water and power for a year).

cheers

K

[kersley]

Reading the above percentage, I think it's fair to say that the Americans are far too greedy. Another thing.... Why is the American pizza twice as big and half the price than here in the UK?
With all due respect of course...

[ulli]

Here is my salicornia story:
not sure if I've mentioned it before.

My friend Jeanine was married to a biologist from the University of Arizona at Phoenix, Daniel Murphy, who got funding from Marlon Brando
to do a project in the coastal desert of Saudi Arabia.
They planted "salicornia" plants which grow in salt water, and irriagated the field which stretched far into the desert, with ocean water.
The plant can provide oil, and meal /flour, or it can be eaten raw with salad. It was considered a delicacy in 18thcentury royal courts of Europe.

Anyway, the PTB killed the project.
Marlon Brando's last interview ever was given to Larry King, at Brando's home.
He couldn't get the news of salicornia out, ...the way Larry King interrupted him every time he tried to bring up he subject.
I was really shocked, but that was long time ago, when I was still really naive about such things.

[K626]

(PhysOrg.com) -- This flow chart of the estimated US energy use in 2009, assembled by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), paints a pretty sobering picture of our energy situation. To begin with, it shows that more than half (58%) of the total energy produced in the US is wasted due to inefficiencies, such as waste heat from power plants, vehicles, and light bulbs. In other words, the US has an energy efficiency of 42%. And, despite the numerous reports of progress in solar, wind, and geothermal energy, those three energy sources combined provide just 1.2% of our total energy production. The vast majority of our energy still comes from petroleum (37%), natural gas (25%), and coal (21%).

That percentage of oil illustrates that by far our biggest problem - or area of improvement - is transportation. As the chart shows, the transportation sector is the single biggest consumer of energy, accounting for nearly 40% of the energy consumed by the four sectors (along with residential, commercial, and industrial). In comparison, just 16% is used for residential use. And while the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors waste about 20% of their energy, the transportation sector wastes a full 75%, making it just 25% energy-efficient. Part of this waste is due to the fact that cars are an inherently inefficient way to move people around, since much of the energy must go into moving the massive car and not simply the person."





cheers

K

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by ulli (here)
Here is my salicornia story:
not sure if I've mentioned it before.

My friend Jeanine was married to a biologist from the University of Arizona at Phoenix, Daniel Murphy, who got funding from Marlon Brando
to do a project in the coastal desert of Saudi Arabia.
They planted "salicornia" plants which grow in salt water, and irriagated the field which stretched far into the desert, with ocean water.
The plant can provide oil, and meal /flour, or it can be eaten raw with salad. It was considered a delicacy in 18thcentury royal courts of Europe.

Anyway, the PTB killed the project.
Marlon Brando's last interview ever was given to Larry King, at Brando's home.
He couldn't get the news of salicornia out, ...the way Larry King interrupted him every time he tried to bring tup he subject.
I was really shocked, but that was long time ago, when I was still really naive about such things.

Good story.

I imagine that's the kind of independant thinking they really hate.

One of my fav actors btw.

Peace

K

[kersley]

Could we have one thread where we post all these stupid abbreviations !

as I hate them,
why cannot people explain things with more words, and make all that more understandable
to all of us.

I am quite sure that there are many that are too afraid to ask "stupid" questions,
and keep on living in the darkness,

the best truths are the simple truths.

a.[/QUOTE]

Why not cut out the abbreviation all together. It would make life easier for all of us...
I do understand what you mean. English is not my first language either.