Does anyone have any details of an altered 'Napoleon timeline'?

[jiminii]

on another post someone said Napoleon timeline is changed and now he won the war. this would mean the rothchilds would not have gotten rich ... any details on this ... anyone know more ... It resonates with me

jim

[sunflower]

James Horak mentioned this in an interview (can't recall which one). And I didn't hear him giving any reference so it sounded like hearsay to me.

[donk]

Maia started a thread on it here...

[ghostrider]

Posted by jiminii (here)
on another post someone said Napoleon timeline is changed and now he won the war. this would mean the rothchilds would not have gotten rich ... any details on this ... anyone know more ... It resonates with me

jim

they changed the outcome of the battle at waterloo, on sept 9th the ptb went back to 1798 to change history ...

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Honestly, there are so many holes in this story...Just take five minutes and think about it.

Google "Rothschild". Nothing has changed. Rothschilds are still super-rich.

If you somehow believe that Google is involved in this ludicrous conspiracy, just go and get a history book. If someone had changed the past, it would, in theory, also change everything else after, including books.

This is one of the reasons I'm not frequently posting here anymore... You know, it doesn't hurt to use a bit of reason before posting.

You could even argue that if someone change the past, we wouldn't even notice it. Despite this being theoretically a valid discussion, it's still a very debatable subject and doesn't collaborate to give this story any more substance.

Raf.

[Bob]

Bonjour, je suis français eh, maintenant, Ce n'est pas vrai?

Oui ? Non?

[ghostrider]

napoleon fought against a monarchy , after his pyramid experience , he made himself a monarchy, his general said he was different when he came out ... it scared him so bad , he ordered a cannon ball shot at the face of the sphinx and that how the nose got broke off ...

[RMorgan]

Posted by ghostrider (here)
napoleon fought against a monarchy , after his pyramid experience , he made himself a monarchy, his general said he was different when he came out ... it scared him so bad , he ordered a cannon ball shot at the face of the sphinx and that how the nose got broke off ...

There's absolute no truth in this statement. There are several illustrations made long before Napoleon was born which show the Sphinx with the missing nose.

As an example, Frederick Lewis Norden, an artist and marine architect, sketched the Sphinx in 1737. His detailed drawings, published in 1755, were more realistic and showed the Sphinx with no nose. It is very unlikely that Norden would omit the nose if it was present. We can conclude that the nose was gone by 1737 at the latest; thus its removal can not be blamed on Napoleon's troops, who visited more than 50 years later.



by Frederik Ludwig Norden (1708-1742) from the book Voyage d’Egypte et de Nubie

Raf.

[blufire]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hey folks,

Honestly, there are so many holes in this story...Just take five minutes and think about it.

Google "Rothschild". Nothing has changed. Rothschilds are still super-rich.

If you somehow believe that Google is involved in this ludicrous conspiracy, just go and get a history book. If someone had changed the past, it would also change everything else after, including books.

This is one of the reasons I'm not frequently posting here anymore... You know, it doesn't hurt to use a bit of reason before posting.

You could even argue that if someone change the past, we wouldn't even notice it. Despite this being theoretically a valid discussion, it's still a very debatable subject and doesn't collaborate to give this story any more substance.

Raf.

. . . Amen . . Especially to your paragraph 4

[donk]

Now now kids...play nice, remember: time travel (like The Lord) works in mysterious ways....you start throwing in things like "reason" and "sense" and especially "evidence" and the whole thing starts getting a little silly.

Just because we didn't stop existing when the time travellers meddled with our timeline doesn't necessarily mean that Napoleon didn't shoot the sphinx in the face. The time meddlers coulda just fixed the evidence too.

[pyriel]

I would think going back and changing the 'napoleon" era would also change alot of the other events. Today there isnt a damn thing that has changed so history wasnt changed. I would think history would not allow for major changes to the extreme that would have happened.

Remember to take everything you hear/read with a pinch of salt.

Like RMorgan, reason i dont post here much anymore.. ppl just go with what they hear/read cause the author of said writing made it sound so damn good. What a joke. wake up ppl

[donk]

Posted by pyriel (here)
I would think history would not allow for major changes to the extreme that would have happened.

Remember to take everything you hear/read with a pinch of salt.

Like RMorgan, reason i dont post here much anymore.. ppl just go with what they hear/read cause the author of said writing made it sound so damn good. What a joke. wake up ppl

I know, right?? Like how crazy would it be if someone changed the major historical fact that Columbus discovered America in the year of our lord fourteen hundred and ninty-two. What a joke indeed!

Ps--not trying to be mean, just having fun...c'mon, anyone that doesn't believe in this type posting and taking it totally seriously is in a way giving it (Jim) power and affirmation...someone who "knows better" isn't going to be "fooled" or buy in, whilst a believer is not gonna say..."Ohhh, you're right, that doesn't make sense"

Raf pointed out using reason in posts, I found the statement that history is somehow fixed outrageous, as I feel most of it fiction...or at best one small, incomplete perspective. Posting about how "silly posts" make you not post is kinda silly to me as well...

And of course, taking ANYTHING too seriously is never good on your constitution, lighten up and have some fun--I thought the interview (and my witty comments on that thread) sure were...

[Wind]

There's actually an interesting theory about the Sphinx. It might have been Anubis, the guardian of the Necropolis, the guardian of the dead.

[blufire]

*************

[eric1]

I did quite a bit of research with respect to the Montauk Project years back. Helped Peter Moon a little bit with respect to some research(nothing major on my part) and also read the Montauk Pulse quite a bit. One of the interesting pieces in that letter detailed how Napolean actually escaped for a brief time from his exile on Helena island and actually made his way to Long Island---near Montuak in fact(apparently some historical evidence to corroborate that as well). This info was known only to the ruling elites at the time reportedly and caused quite a stir. Eventually Napolean ended up going back to Helena supposedly where he eventually died(possibly poisoned).

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by sunflower (here)

it sounded like hearsay to me.

This is the problem.

By definition, it cannot be anything BUT hearsay. I mean: what could constitute proof?

I do think that parallel (or bifurcating) timelines are likely to be in some sense a metaphysical reality -- and also one which the black projects guys tinker with and create all kinds of serious problems with highly advanced technology that they barely understand (viz Montauk, etc). There's quite a lot of compelling circumstantial evidence that some black projects are heavily engaged in messing with time itself.

And, I also share some of Jim's perspectives and subjective perceptions.

But in practical terms, these phenomena are pretty much inaccessible and therefore only have a theoretical existence that does not affect us (or affects us, or some of us, only in highly exceptional and peculiar circumstances).

For Raf, blufire, et al, I've asked Jim several times publicly and privately not to hold such great store by material he casually picks up on the internet, and better to stick to his own personal truths (and to express them clearly as his own) -- not confusing reality with hearsay, rumor, false or invented stories.

The internet as a whole is NOT a reliable source of information. (And with great respect, neither is James Horak, all the time.)

I respect Jiminii and wish him nothing but the best, but he's not very skilled or experienced at sifting fact from fiction on the internet, and should NOT drag this stuff onto the forum without it going through a very rigorous filter. And, as I've also said, there are a LOT of good people here who can assist in that process.

Most of the forum content consists of highly intelligent and well-informed discussion -- sometimes truly exceptionally so. One should not judge the value of this huge, ongoing online conference-cum-library by occasional references to Ison being a spaceship or the earth already having experienced a pole shift which no-one noticed and is being covered up! 98% of the threads are far more useful than that, and only a handful of members are (in their enthusiasm) getting things badly confused.

It's all about learning and growth, and no-one here is exempt.

[donk]

I'm kinda leaning toward hoping to having posts removed from a thread about an interview based on the story that time traveling illuminati went back to the French Revolution on 9/9/13 and changed the outcome of Waterloo thus rendering us and nearly everyone we know non-existent...except I get a kick out of it.

But I'm supportive, I love Horak and the idea of anyone with good intentions and special ability to do their thing and fix timelines or whatever it is they're trying to do. Discernment and all that....you can point out an idea's not reasonable without sounding like you got sand in your...I'm just going to stop right here...see y'all in a safer thread!


Added: oops! Hi Bill!! Hope you don't mind some of us having (good natured and even better intended) fun with it...feel free to remove any my nonsense you find is cluttering up the place--I have nothing but love & respect for it and trust your judgment...it would never hurt my feelings to have my blathering a removed...thanks for what you do! In all seriousness, phil

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by blufire (here)
There are 3 maybe 4 of us on this thread that are running a risk of being called trolls and having our posts removed because they are not supportive and are negative. . . . Of course if we were cute 18 year old philipino girls we would be good to go . . . .

wtf ?

The point of your post, whatever it was, has, for me, gotten lost in what is I presume either tongue in cheek or sarcastic wording.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by blufire (here)
There are 3 maybe 4 of us on this thread that are running a risk of being called trolls and having our posts removed because they are not supportive and are negative. . . . Of course if we were cute 18 year old philipino girls we would be good to go . . . .

wtf ?

The point of your post, whatever it was, has, for me, gotten lost in what is I presume either tongue in cheek or sarcastic wording.

Blufire was having an underhand dig at Jim (ad hominem!), and was assuming that a post that was critical of the thread's premise would be dismissed as 'trolling'.

If that was the case, I should then also delete my own critical post (#16 above), and give myself a three-day vacation to cool off.



Blufire is right (IMO) to be critical, but not to throw unpleasant mud at Jim in that way. Of course, reading this, she might care to edit her post....!

[Delight]

I absolutely accept that timelines may be altered. But the laugh out loud funny part is IF you are on a different timeline, every backstory would paint the timeline as it exists NOW. There is no point to the question because if Jim is on the earth, all he needs to do is google and get the update of a refreshed timeline history.

Jiminii after several posts, I have observed you want to be heard and heeded. But I don't trust your maturity. Naive is an innocent open-ness that may seem foolish. It is needed to be open and it can be a place of strength. I think naive is wonderful if the naive one realizes the characteristic and never pretends to be someone who can "lead".

You seem half baked. It is as if you are reading to me from a dictionary that you have not absorbed. You seem undiscerning? I expect someone trying to tell me something to stand in advance of my own understanding. I trust there is "truth" and I like hearing people reiterate the truth. The people who ask me to pay attention have to show something I call "Integrity" and sound mind before I can hear.

There have been several people whom I just cannot hear because they have a terrible track record and scare people like Horak and Hoagland (and all like them). Others as examples of alternative "teachers healers and commentators" have so little to say that they seem like they memorized a rehearsed spiel and cannot converse on a new area. Eric Perle, Dolores Cannon repeat the same things over and over. I do not hear Steven Greer because he is repetitive and also brags and makes claims (like with the Atacama mummy...why state it is alien?).

Reputation counts too as reports from friends can reveal something. Bob Dobbs financially cheated my friend years ago and claimed at that time being many years older than he was shown to be.

I dislike tale tellers predicting social and political disasters (that never happen) and I stopped listening to all that...... knowing none of that will happen. None of the woe givers ever pan out. There is a reason for that.

The future is formed form intention and is created by intention in the now. Statistics and models are the past. Prophecy is a view of a present state of energy and we change whatever we know about just by observing.

Some times I am prejudiced by the weight of ethical slips reported. No, a hypocrite will make me deaf. That is why LRH leaves me deaf. That is why I will never join an egregore. We are beholden to the energy of the origin of all thought forms when we embrace them. Too many cults have deliberate liars in charge.

Yes, most broadcasters of 'knowledge" just suck (pull energy as in Taking My Attention) to me. I then often see the inconsistencies, lack of effective change from their ongoing offerings and the proclamations made that often "expire" or shift based on their claims never panning out.

Other people bring things out and disappear off the radar screen. Who follows up?
My biggest problem with the alterative youtube culture is the way people are not deeply questioned. I would be surprised if the "tinkling brass" type of informant would even allow tough investigation anyway! Certain interviewers are dismally unprepared and ask weak questions or worse impose an opinion. Alex Jones is one least favorite as a Biased Source ego. I feel something upsetting and think this is "fear porn" and turn off.

How many updates do we need? I think we need a way to have information updated ongoingly and without cease. We should not be so shallow as an audience and demand more plus subscribe if happy. Henrik Palmgen stands out positively to me on Redice. He has my subscription.

Back to the OP. I am frustrated by one more thing. How many years do we still focus on BIG stories and not principles?