"They used to inhabit this planet when there was not a sun"

[Atlas]

Cusco PhD anthropologist Theo Paredes offers amazing insight and wisdom:

Posted by giovonni (here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Fi4WOHW0NI

[earthadvocate]

Thank you for posting,I was there in 2013 with a group of 5 and 2 shamans , they never explain what this video did, but they said it was a special place, we had a despacho ceremony there.

[ghostrider]

Trees need sunlight to grow, grass needs sunlight to grow, the flora and fauna need sunlight ... the sun is the first component to forming a solar system, its enormous and far reaching gravitational arms bind everything together... sorry but no way there was a planet before a sun ...

[East Sun]

There are countless entities beyond what we can even imagine that don't need what we need to exist. extra dimensional beings and places. That is what I believe.

Of course I can't prove that to you but based on what I have read about the universe's vast scope and diversity there can be anything and everything and
probably is. Just a thought for those so inspired to look beyond. IMO

[Jeffedelic]

Posted by ghostrider (here)
Trees need sunlight to grow, grass needs sunlight to grow, the flora and fauna need sunlight ... the sun is the first component to forming a solar system, its enormous and far reaching gravitational arms bind everything together... sorry but no way there was a planet before a sun ...

Even if there was some stray body floating through the void (which I suppose could happen under certain conditions but would still need an original star to form) it'd be crazy to think it'd be able to encounter a new solar system and enter a stable, "normal" orbit.

[Atlas]

A comment posted on youtube:

Posted by astralseeker

Someone should add up/compare/put in perspective what is said here and what is presented in the short video:
The World & Mankind Before The Flood (Dr. Carl Baugh)

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

[PurpleLama]

Folks need to look into the electric universe theory before poo pooing on this thread.

[araucaria]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
Folks need to look into the electric universe theory before poo pooing on this thread.

Exactly. I have been posting quite a bit on this subject of late. The below link is a good place to check it out. By my understanding, Peru would be precisely in the twilight zone of an Earth with Saturn as its star in a geostationary north polar position. This would have ended when the Saturn system entered the solar system.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1054800

[Agape]

It's what I remember about the times our ET ancestors came here , millions of years ago ( who knows what time was it exactly ) , living in kind of 'twilight zone' for very long time .
It does not mean there was no Sun or anything remotely close to the idea , it just means the light was very dim and earthly atmosphere was obscured
and the same phenomenon may have occurred many times later as well , perhaps following some major cataclysm.

[ghostrider]

The missing link to the electric universe is spiritual energy... Creation is the all powerful, infinite absolute for lack of a better word you could say God ... spiritual energy creates dark energy, dark matter, black holes etc, which creates suns, galaxies, stars, etc ... according to the plejaren and Enochs writings , the entire universe was created by pure spiritual energy the size of a flea , you can read about it at theyfly.com, and the futureofmankind.uk. ...

[Sunny-side-up]

Posted by ghostrider (here)
Trees need sunlight to grow, grass needs sunlight to grow, the flora and fauna need sunlight ... the sun is the first component to forming a solar system, its enormous and far reaching gravitational arms bind everything together... sorry but no way there was a planet before a sun ...

Hi ghostrider I think Dr Theo Paredes was saying 'Twlight' there was a sun then but in daytime it was like a 'twlight' strength.

It's just his wording/English language level, not actually saying/meaning no sun.

That's my interpretation of that section of his talk.

[DSKlausler]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
Folks need to look into the electric universe theory before poo pooing on this thread.

Good morning,

Back in the day, I spent a great deal of time with the EU - books and video.
Not that they are entirely incompatible, but my money is on Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory.
http://reciprocalsystem.org/

As to population of "earth", might I suggest the very interesting Daniel Papers:
http://www.conscioushugs.com/daniel-papers/

Sincerely,

Dave

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Agape (here)
It's what I remember about the times our ET ancestors came here , millions of years ago ( who knows what time was it exactly ) , living in kind of 'twilight zone' for very long time .
It does not mean there was no Sun or anything remotely close to the idea , it just means the light was very dim and earthly atmosphere was obscured
and the same phenomenon may have occurred many times later as well , perhaps following some major cataclysm.

Very true. There have been many cataclysms throughout the Earth's history that could have theoretically blocked out the sun. Events such as these might give the impression to primitive peoples who survived them that there was no Sun in the sky.

Although long before Homo Sapiens (allegedly), one example being the Impact Winter of the Chicxulub Meteor collision, purportedly knocking out the dinosaurs 66million years ago. Another, the Siberian Traps eruptions that spread approximately 2 million square kilometres of basalt lava across the Earth's surface, poisoning the atmosphere, and possibly also blocking out the sun's rays for a long period of time.

[Agape]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Agape (here)
It's what I remember about the times our ET ancestors came here , millions of years ago ( who knows what time was it exactly ) , living in kind of 'twilight zone' for very long time .
It does not mean there was no Sun or anything remotely close to the idea , it just means the light was very dim and earthly atmosphere was obscured
and the same phenomenon may have occurred many times later as well , perhaps following some major cataclysm.

Very true. There have been many cataclysms throughout the Earth's history that could have theoretically blocked out the sun. Events such as these might give the impression to primitive peoples who survived them that there was no Sun in the sky.

Although long before Homo Sapiens (allegedly), one example being the Impact Winter of the Chicxulub Meteor collision, purportedly knocking out the dinosaurs 66million years ago. Another, the Siberian Traps eruptions that spread approximately 2 million square kilometres of basalt lava across the Earth's surface, poisoning the atmosphere, and possibly also blocking out the sun's rays for a long period of time.

It's how they describe the Dream Time, the Time before Time .. I believe.

Our ancestors , we were not primitive people ( well it's in the file ). We were waiting for the Sun come out for very long time , weeks of our time .. thousands of human years i think ..
so we grew weak i think . But the Sun is growing dangerous nowadays , it's too bright, too hot ..

[kirolak]

Posted by DSKlausler (here)

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
Folks need to look into the electric universe theory before poo pooing on this thread.

Good morning,

Back in the day, I spent a great deal of time with the EU - books and video.
Not that they are entirely incompatible, but my money is on Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory.
http://reciprocalsystem.org/

As to population of "earth", might I suggest the very interesting Daniel Papers:
http://www.conscioushugs.com/daniel-papers/

Sincerely,

Dave

Thank you for drawing my attention to the Daniel Papers, really fascinating!

[araucaria]

Posted by Agape (here)
It's what I remember about the times our ET ancestors came here , millions of years ago ( who knows what time was it exactly ) , living in kind of 'twilight zone' for very long time .
It does not mean there was no Sun or anything remotely close to the idea , it just means the light was very dim and earthly atmosphere was obscured
and the same phenomenon may have occurred many times later as well , perhaps following some major cataclysm.

Agape, this is not the first time you have followed one of my posts with something contradictory. Disagreeing is OK, because I have no personal stake in the ideas that I explore. I am simply following them as far as they will take me, and if at some stage they were to come to a dead end, that would be fine by me. Hence I don’t normally respond, and even now I am not responding to any slight irritation of being contradicted, but to the pattern of contradiction. I don’t normally respond because what you say is usually predicated on your personal experience, which is at once unprovable and virtually irrefutable. When you say a categorical no to my reasoned thought, my reasoned thought has no answer to that. But in light of my recent thinking, it does actually have an answer to a rereading of your Barry King and Project Camelot interviews.

Talbott’s Saturn scenario I referred to is based on huge amounts of world myth and artefacts, something the entire human population seems to have grappled with at some point. The science backing him up already existed: the electric universe (EU) theory was already busy making correct predictions about the properties of comets; no shoe-horning, or indeed any new research at all, was necessary to back up Talbott’s account. However, it is a static picture which expressly includes the Sun as well as Saturn. My own contribution is to turn this into a dynamic scenario enabling us to get from orbit around Saturn to where we are now. The dynamic factor would appear to be entry into the solar system whereby Saturn would be stopped in its tracks by Jupiter, with the smaller planets getting through to the inner solar system. The ‘no sun’ (or possibly distant binary companion only) hypothesis is merely a consequence of thinking this through. Hence it is predictable that some ancient civilization might remember a time with no sun: let’s just accept their evidence as they give it. After all, you expect no less for yourself.

Accepting your evidence, then, as you give it, where does it lead me? Very deep, but not very far, I’m afraid. (I am reminded of woodwork: if you chisel the surface with the bevelled side of the chisel, you can carve your way down in a gently controlled manner; but if you dig in with the flat side, you go too deep too fast and get stuck.) You and your ET group arrived on a ship 80 million years ago that you say has been sinking into the earth’s crust ever since, and you complain you are unable to interest scientists to take a look, although there may be something down there after all this time. All this may be true for all I know; but it is painfully obvious why the research is never going to happen: a huge investment of resources on the basis of one person’s paranormal say-so and not a sniff of material evidence to provide a lead. No one has ever started digging without stumbling over some artefact first.

The above EU story tells you how to get scientists on board with zany ET stuff beyond their funding grade. You bring to them readymade material that corroborates their own existing theories: they are won over because they have already done their homework, on their own terms, in their own language; it is all grist to their mill. Your unfortunate situation on the other hand raises three practical issues that create the economic one: scientists generally have no handle on the paranormal, interstellar travel, or really ancient sophisticated life forms. If they do, then they may no longer have a handle on mainstream science. The EU crowd and others like them have not lost the way back into the mainstream: they follow standard scientific protocol in making predictions about comets etc. that gives them credibility when such predictions are proven correct.

Putting your ‘Bodhgaya event’ into this context – without questioning its validity, you understand, but merely looking at its reception, what is to be done with it – what you would get from a scientific exploration would likely be more ‘forbidden archaeology’. Forbidden archaeology is chronologically anomalous material that is swept under the carpet, i.e. left unexplained and conveniently forgotten in museum store-rooms. When this is impossible, as in the case of the pyramids, analysis of chronologically anomalous material gets relegated to the status of pseudo-science, here pyramidology. Now the content of ‘pseudo-science’ is not always bad science: if you take the official dimensions of the Great Pyramid and derive mathematical functions such as pi, there is nothing wrong with the math; you simply hit the brick wall (or stone pyramid) of anachronism, and the better your mathematical proof the harder you hit it. What to do? All anyone can do is make their little scratch, possibly chip off a small flake, and trust that a breach will eventually be achieved.

The ‘Bodhgaya event’ – were something ever to be dug up – would be forbidden archaeology in spades (pun intended). There is a contradiction right there: you don’t go looking for forbidden archaeology, it turns up unwanted and has to be hidden again. Alternatively, this ancient crash site would go the way of Roswell: straight into black ops. But there you have another problem: who needs Bodhgaya when you already have Roswell in realtime to back-engineer, no digging required? Actually I have a whole bunch of issues with your report that would need a separate thread, but let me give one concrete example here. In your report, you say with reference to your ET civilization:

our civilisation is one of the oldest in universe... millions of years of our star time. One hour of our time is approximately twenty years of earthly time long... It is very far from here and not at all affected by any local happenings.

Doing the math is awkward because you don’t say how long a year is. For the sake of argument, and since you are comparing to earth time, let’s say it is 365 days of 24 hours, or 8760 hours, like ours. Hence 20 years is 175,200 hours. That would make one ET year 8760*175,200 earth years, or a little over 1.5 billion years. Hence it comes as no surprise to learn that a civilization claiming to be millions of billions (quadrillions) of years old is ‘not at all affected by any local happenings’ in a universe thought (doubtless mistakenly) to be only a few billion years old. (The one possible exception being the loss of one of its ships here, with 10,000 souls on board). More to the point, on a planet that has only just discovered space weather and is only beginning to think of interstellar and intergalactic weather, local humans, who are by most accounts a fairly young race, likewise understandably feel not at all affected by happenings so remote in space and time. The actual situation however is much ‘worse’ than this if we factor in your suggestion that older planets rotate more slowly. If that is the case, then your home planet’s day and year would be much longer, meaning that in earth years we are talking about a universe not quadrillions but quintillions of years old.

What this means is that any notion of current relevance goes out the window: the notion of ‘soon’, to quote an example that cropped up recently, is hugely dilated into ‘this year, next year, some time, never’. Why earthlings are fond of words like ‘soon’ is because we are working in emergency conditions to an earth-based timescale: an urgent human predicament needs solving on a human timescale, if not now at least asap. According to my reading of the Saturn story, varying subjective times are indeed already a huge issue on this much tinier local scale (there are actually many more commonalities than that). We have to start learning to deal with this problem from the beginning; your experience, however real, would require us to tackle this time issue from the hardest possible angle: near eternity.

The Blue Avians-type scenario is Beckettian Absurdism for a new audience: the plot of Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot is tomorrow never comes: ‘Mr Godot can’t come today, but he’ll come tomorrow’. The planned rescue by your most ancient race is a maximalist non-Hollywood version of ‘ET phone home’, aka Beckettian Absurdism/Blue Avianism: ‘our people are coming, but not any time soon, and that means probably thousands if not millions of your years (always supposing they got our distress signal)’. It is exactly the same story, inflated beyond all believable proportions, and of zero current relevance, except perhaps negatively, to encourage despair.

This I feel is why you are getting no traction with this ancient scenario (as opposed, I hasten to add, to the general wisdom you contribute to the forum). I for one am not sorry that this is so, because, just suppose that scientific evidence were forthcoming: it would place you in the position of a Corey Goode-type figure with the validation Corey Goode is never going to get on this forum at least: having been proven right on the main element you would become a messianic figure, an authority whom people would have to believe regarding anything else that you might say as well. More divine revelation is not the answer. It calls for a leap of faith that we are not prepared to make, having been there done that, and found that it is better to work things out for ourselves. Checking your data in the field involves a similar leap of faith in yourself which no scientist worthy of the name is going to make. Vetting your report on the other hand is something people like myself can do. In a nutshell, given that your ‘Source’ is out of range, the ‘source’ which enabled your experience has to be much closer to home and – quite independently of any negative or positive content – that makes your experience authentic in terms of your ‘source’, and less than authentic in terms of your ‘Source’.

Bill Ryan is a scientist. I see on another thread you have been asking him to ban you because you are unhappy with the disregard you have been shown. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1070717 Bill, I would suggest, is unlikely to ban you, to the extent that you have broken no forum rules (nor has anyone else in disregarding you). I find it reassuring that a member will not be banned for no reason. The forum’s motto may be ‘where science and spirituality meet’, but the fact that they don’t always do so is not a hanging matter, it is a work in progress. Within the guidelines, no one is asking anyone to leave, we all have to learn to adjust, experiencers and non-experiencers alike. That at least is the only agenda I have; peaceful cohabitation as an end in itself is what transcends the accidents of circumstance. We all have an incredible amount of personal stuff that we think is important to share, but at the same time, perhaps it is actually getting in the way. Of course it is important to share, but more in the sense of getting something out of one’s system. This certainly applies to the stuff I am talking about: what we tend to call other people’s beliefs or pseudo-knowledge as opposed to what we of course really know through personal experience. ‘Events’ (another buzzword) are like doors, only interesting depending on where they lead, and whom; some destinations are collective, others individual. As its name suggests, the ‘Bodhgaya Event’ is such an event – whether it is one or the other type, well that is where we seem to disagree.

So, Agape, I’m afraid, if you sincerely want out of here, you are going to have to retire of your own accord, or simply stop posting. But since you don’t seem able to do that, you could always remind Bill that you have been flouting forum policy on channelled material, normally restricted to a signposted unendorsed area, but in your case posted all over the place. He will probably just ask you to desist. That would be good advice you might want to follow: you are always at your best when you give it a rest – rhyme intended

[Agape]

Agape, this is not the first time you have followed one of my posts with something contradictory

Dear Avalon member Araucaria ,

I've responded to thread started by Atlas on topic that is familiar with me, for my own reasons.
Your very post preceding mine has no connection to what I've posted neither I'm debating your post .
You'd better understand that people come here from very different corners of world , Universe and experience .

They do not specifically come or 'follow' after each other .

You seem to be attached to an idea foreign to me, such as following someone and attacking their post which is WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW

and miss COMPLETELY someone have option or contribution to the topic that does not correlate with yours.

With that, I will simply skip reading the rest of your lengthy article . Hope that's ok with you .
I've not followed or responded to your posting.


Thanks



I've sent a report to the MOD team, if they wish to talk to me on my presence here on forum or if they so agree with your take , they can always take it with me in PMs.

If your 'opinion' represents 'the whole of Avalon' and kind of 'fake dignity' you're offering in war of hundreds ( presumably ) against one physically weakened individual then of course, there's no option than 'stop posting' .

But again, dear Araucaria , I've neither followed or responded to your posting in this thread as anyone with intellect could understand and you could probably too unless you're set up against me, for what reason, since long ago and it never let you ,

i've avoided you since .. never wish to cause more arguments. Kindly get back to the topic unless you have something meaningful and good to say.


THANKS


For reference : the last ( and nearly only one ) exchange we two have ever had was in October 2014 if my eyes serve me well ,
in the thread In response to Araucaria that I've created ( within my private forum here ) in order to reply to your posting in Simon Parkes thread which you addressed to me but debating you further would obviously take the whole thread further, off topic.
Other than that , I've quoted or responded to you only few times altogether, if memory serves me well, again.

You're great rhetorician ( or writer, in this case ) but trying to be in didactic, paternal stand towards and above my head , with unclear motivations and means used : if you have any true interest in me , why not responding in one of my own case threads : of all ,
and using your own intelligence to represent a 'pawn of collective conscience' here and trying to shame me in public, number of times ,
does not really seem to be a sign of independent thinker or mature individual but I know I'm wrong here .


You're most welcome to rephrase your article and questions in way that does not resemble 'repetitive targeting' of individual because I do not think there's fairly anything I've done to you ( and yours ) that would warranty such an attack.

IF you were legitimate 'investigator' , researcher, scientists, therapist or anyone fitting to such category and well meaning individual ,
those questions you're rising - but it remains doubtful to makings of this forum whether you want those questions answered- would be styled differently .

Questioning a witness can be done with dignity. What you've plotted above resembles attack on character and no decent individual should answer questions posed in that manner,
dear Araucaria , I'm not a terrorist .

Bill Ryan himself bumped my case thread number of times and welcomed people to read and ask questions.

It does not mean that my understanding can not correlate with other peoples information ( I hope ) or that I've to be confined to premises of one thread .

Regarding further proofs and questions and whether such can be provided and in what manner , again, returning this debate to the founder of this forum.

[Agape]

For references sake ..

Agape, this is not the first time you have followed one of my posts with something contradictory. Disagreeing is OK, because I have no personal stake in the ideas that I explore. I am simply following them as far as they will take me, and if at some stage they were to come to a dead end, that would be fine by me. Hence I don’t normally respond, and even now I am not responding to any slight irritation of being contradicted, but to the pattern of contradiction. I don’t normally respond because what you say is usually predicated on your personal experience, which is at once unprovable and virtually irrefutable. When you say a categorical no to my reasoned thought, my reasoned thought has no answer to that. But in light of my recent thinking, it does actually have an answer to a rereading of your Barry King and Project Camelot interviews.

Talbott’s Saturn scenario I referred to is based on huge amounts of world myth and artefacts, something the entire human population seems to have grappled with at some point. The science backing him up already existed: the electric universe (EU) theory was already busy making correct predictions about the properties of comets; no shoe-horning, or indeed any new research at all, was necessary to back up Talbott’s account. However, it is a static picture which expressly includes the Sun as well as Saturn. My own contribution is to turn this into a dynamic scenario enabling us to get from orbit around Saturn to where we are now. The dynamic factor would appear to be entry into the solar system whereby Saturn would be stopped in its tracks by Jupiter, with the smaller planets getting through to the inner solar system. The ‘no sun’ (or possibly distant binary companion only) hypothesis is merely a consequence of thinking this through. Hence it is predictable that some ancient civilization might remember a time with no sun: let’s just accept their evidence as they give it. After all, you expect no less for yourself.

Accepting your evidence, then, as you give it, where does it lead me? Very deep, but not very far, I’m afraid.

The reason why I can not answer to you here is for you starting from wrong presumption.

I can't confirm or deny that you've accidentally jumped to similar presumptions with me before because I'm neither controlling you, checking your mind or following what you say .
I know how frustrating this sounds but .. complicated discussions can occur between friends wishing to correlate their pieces of information and put things together ( synthetic approach ) rather than they'd occur between people who seem to be set on path of intelligence analysts , as yourself .

Even if the rest of your article is meaningful, the beginning rises striking red alert with me .

You're implying something at start that is absolutely not valid from any side of validity of cognition,
and it's unfortunately you hunting down the presumed controversies ( from your analytic standpoint ) and getting caught in your ways .

I'm not . I've missed your posting about David Talbott and somewhat eccentric looking theory of Saturn and Mars caught in stationary position towards Earth but now that I've checked the link,
I'd have to say it's just a theory . I did not study that theory so that I'd have data and time at my side to either support it or disprove it .

But it does not mean ( to me ) that you ( or anyone of us ) provided definitive answer to the question.

Further, my posting here did not represent an 'evidence' . It merely represents 'a figment of memory' where I'm concerned .


You may be very talented and intuitive writer Araucaria but there are reasons why I won't enter to discussion with you and those are simple ,
if you twist the subtle laws of logic couple of times or make something/someone look ostensively , rigidly stupid by using even small lies ,
with no need to remind us how the makings of human language are based on the 'art of pretence'
we can only arrive in another ERROR.

It's not why I come here . Right from the start the broader 'forum' has only a meaning in rare moments when we can put some of our information together .

Your 'origin' and task here seems to be TOTALLY different from mine , you come to analyse and compare what people say about each other .

Each of the people, theories , histories and events quoted here have life of their own . Some may be 'short of essence' . Others are full of it but the 'essence' remains really invisible to you unless you go for the person, the philosophy they teach, the particular case .. and study them in person.

So no matter what are your questions in disguise , the whole caveat of your posting to me , starting from 'sorry you stepped on my toe'
which isn't true, I simply dared to post 'after you ' and it seems that you think you've provided conclusive answer to the question of this thread

could be condensed to one sentence , something like 'Agape , how do you dare to post and remind us of your 'Bodhgaya ET Event' while we never asked you to do that ,

we are not capable of decent interview with you or believing anything you say but perhaps, you want to write a book or provide us with big fat chunk of .. evidence' .




You see , dear forum as represented by Araucaria, I really don't need you for that stand against me , it's an automatic one rifle , it's completely automatised in minds of human society as we know it . You only repeat it in various forms and alterations from the beginning .
Like a CD that plays in your head , you're unable to act with dignity and feel for an individual beyond that or even rise a good question.

It's like talking to a machine really .

So please forgive I don't answer because I think that your 'machine' in its best configuration was already programmed and is running its program where someone like me have basically NO PLACE .


Beyond that , some of that 'programming' that is at the very roots of your controversy and this world is FULL of them unless you've noticed has much to do with times and world long gone now and world that keeps evolving, in front of our eyes .
It's a world where you wake up from being automatically self-assured , well off , well educated gentleman of aristocratic character who doubles between many existential options and philosophies
to being a smart kid dressed in rags on streets of Rio de Janeiro who could in fact , give you some direct answers to your 'important questions' but NEVER WILL.

Yes, you're right there . It's just because you're 'so right' about yourself and the world as it looks to you that you'll never meet those who are not so right and fitting to your paradigm.

And the same is true probably for all the rest of us . We can know and see much but we're definitely not meant to be part of everything .

There are major world events taking place as we talk and we're quite lucky NOT to be part of them .
There's a definition to ones 'time-line' , the Universe is vast ...

and we have - in fact- heard of each other .. I think. Did I.

[Agape]

Posted by araucaria (here)

This I feel is why you are getting no traction with this ancient scenario (as opposed, I hasten to add, to the general wisdom you contribute to the forum). I for one am not sorry that this is so, because, just suppose that scientific evidence were forthcoming: it would place you in the position of a Corey Goode-type figure with the validation Corey Goode is never going to get on this forum at least: having been proven right on the main element you would become a messianic figure, an authority whom people would have to believe regarding anything else that you might say as well. More divine revelation is not the answer. It calls for a leap of faith that we are not prepared to make, having been there done that, and found that it is better to work things out for ourselves. Checking your data in the field involves a similar leap of faith in yourself which no scientist worthy of the name is going to make. Vetting your report on the other hand is something people like myself can do. In a nutshell, given that your ‘Source’ is out of range, the ‘source’ which enabled your experience has to be much closer to home and – quite independently of any negative or positive content – that makes your experience authentic in terms of your ‘source’, and less than authentic in terms of your ‘Source’.

Bill Ryan is a scientist. I see on another thread you have been asking him to ban you because you are unhappy with the disregard you have been shown. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1070717 Bill, I would suggest, is unlikely to ban you, to the extent that you have broken no forum rules (nor has anyone else in disregarding you). I find it reassuring that a member will not be banned for no reason. The forum’s motto may be ‘where science and spirituality meet’, but the fact that they don’t always do so is not a hanging matter, it is a work in progress. Within the guidelines, no one is asking anyone to leave, we all have to learn to adjust, experiencers and non-experiencers alike. That at least is the only agenda I have; peaceful cohabitation as an end in itself is what transcends the accidents of circumstance. We all have an incredible amount of personal stuff that we think is important to share, but at the same time, perhaps it is actually getting in the way. Of course it is important to share, but more in the sense of getting something out of one’s system. This certainly applies to the stuff I am talking about: what we tend to call other people’s beliefs or pseudo-knowledge as opposed to what we of course really know through personal experience. ‘Events’ (another buzzword) are like doors, only interesting depending on where they lead, and whom; some destinations are collective, others individual. As its name suggests, the ‘Bodhgaya Event’ is such an event – whether it is one or the other type, well that is where we seem to disagree.

So, Agape, I’m afraid, if you sincerely want out of here, you are going to have to retire of your own accord, or simply stop posting. But since you don’t seem able to do that, you could always remind Bill that you have been flouting forum policy on channelled material, normally restricted to a signposted unendorsed area, but in your case posted all over the place. He will probably just ask you to desist. That would be good advice you might want to follow: you are always at your best when you give it a rest – rhyme intended

I think you've crossed the line of despairing idiocy when it comes to reading me , since start and too many times , even if Bill stands by your side ,
I don't mind to say the following : you're being ethically rude ,

presenting me and my testimony in the worst light possible .

In your linear logic and non stop attack plot lasting for years now , and I've specifically asked Bill before coming over this time whether to retire my account or whether he thinks my presence is sustainable here, after many months of absence from the stress some of which was unfortunately , indirectly related to flat logic of this forum,
without censorship and attacks of unfriendly philosophers of your calibre , respectable Araucaria,
Bill thought it's ok to come .

Though , of course , I'm not sure now whether Bill really, rather supports your opinion and take on me and whether it's fine according to him I'm being talked down to , by you for example ,
not a good sign is it.

You seem to represent him . The forums 'best intel' . You say 'Bill Ryan is a scientist' . So am I . The world is full of many types of scientists and not all are of the same ilk.

You're going bit too far here to get on me , after all you've been side to here , one way or another and doomsday predictions of many kinds ,

you've retired it seems to me .. to position of medieval inquisition calling 'messianic blah' and 'diabolic twist' to anyone who you do not automatically understand,

and don't stop even from calling me 'channeller' spreading my messages over the forum.

I had huge amount ( I thought ) of respect to you years ago when You seemed to be bright thinker to me but from our 'closer encounters' and your tendency to manipulate weak points and drag them to the 'darker side' of the Moon,
I am not going to pardon you .

Last when we spoke , October 2014 after you've created similar faux pas in Simon Parkes thread after I've posted some well meant to be complimentary information,
that you completely misunderstand because you have no personal experience or understanding in this area ,
you started with good sounding post to me in the same thread to which i naively answered.
After two pages , Barry King that time was blamed for me , for disrupting Simon Parkes thread , I was blamed soon after .
I still believed you're well meaning individual and opened a separate answer thread to you ( vis link above ).

Comparing me to Corey again, very well, thank you and talking of 'Event' , my own moderator rights ( within my sub board ) were suspended on the Day Corey Good brought in the 'prophecy' of Simon Parkes 'ship are soon going to land all over the earth' ,
all in bold red letters, that was months before his interview here was due and on the way out but this is the style he carried on with ,

relying on Bill Ryan , Christine and the Mods full support . He would basically just dump and things were being done .
If only I happened to confront his fanatic sense of prediction and alarms accompanying it .

My testimony has always been very peaceful, so are the Beings and civilisation i/we come from,
I can imagine how it does not fit with your current philosophical dogma but in this case, you are using dirty means and somehow , you seem to be too certain that your means can meet their ends here which rises further suspicions with me.


I will let this again, with Bill and the forum. Even though, as anyone else who came here with dignity and ability to explain their statements to some level at least ,
and made self available to your 'questioning' which you were not part of in fact,
as i'm aware,
you've only come to attack what you perceive as weaknesses , and the way you perceive them .
I've not noticed even one honest, caring question from you over the years . But tons of bubbling negation and perversive love of confrontation that could , in your own terms , continue ad nauseam ( literally ) and that makes me nothing else than victim of bullying from the first sentence you ever wrote,
with hope that you 're right there.

You can talk down this way to another girl or young lady who will be eager to hear of your explanations but don't be so naive I'm telling you ,
to think you really do know so much . And especially, trying to make your point with an ET in whom you don't believe is daunting exercise .


I would like to clean this thread from my 3 posts and your likewise as the arrogant argumentation and talk down have no place here,

are really not helpful to the collective , the topic, least myself.

[araucaria]

Dear Agape
I caught your initial response, which was just a flash of anger, and had obviously subsided a little by the time you changed your post. I am sorry you are so very angry, but, although I may have been the trigger on this occasion, I do not believe I am the cause of it.

My posts are perfectly on topic on the subject of the witness testimony from Peru in the OP. Yours was a little inconsistent. You point out a potential problem that witness testimony can pose by quoting your own witness testimony as if it poses no problems of its own.

You say my ideas about Saturn are only a theory: too true. I have a healthy scepticism for that theory myself, and will be happy to ditch it just as soon as I find a better one. But this must apply to your witness testimony too. I am glad to see you are taking questions, but if you are not answering the hard questions that might upset your theory, preferring to see them as a personal attack, then you are not showing the healthy scepticism you require of others. This is indeed a health issue: among other benefits, it prevents anger. Far from making a personal attack, I am actually showing concern for your wellbeing.

Puzzlement and lack of understanding are a form of, maybe not disease, but at least ill-ease. Greater understanding takes us to somewhere more comfortable, which is why we are constant seekers. I imagine disease sometimes results when that process stops and we start settling for discomfort as being comfortable enough. A no longer needed crutch ends up weakening the function it was intended to strengthen; and an overused theory turns into a belief system, from a useful tool into a spanner in the works.

I got the message that you no longer wish to interact. I have had my say and have nothing more to add. Peace

Note: I wrote this before seeing your latest post, which I have not read yet. Being open-minded, I may therefore have something to add after all; but then again, I may find silence is the wiser course.