Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13160Re: [ufodiscussion] Cross Talk

Expand Messages
  • masanga@talktalk.net
    Aug 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dex wrote:

      "That's funny, when I see an opportuniy...Ted really admires the way you
      think and your writing skills."

      I believe that Ted and I have very similar points of view and think
      in similar ways. I feel honoured to be able say sometimes the things that
      he is thinking but is unable to post to the forum because of his visual
      disability. I am also untellably grateful to him for his unqualified and
      unfailing support and encouragement of my own humble attempts at
      truth-seeing and truth-telling. Ted's service to our common cause may be
      invisible in many people's eyes but it is very real and substantial in mine,
      have no doubt.

      "Apparently, because of the concern..The GT keeps finding more information
      coming through more about Niburu. I for one think it's a null zone that
      Hurtak convinced me of our world would be transitioning through to a higher
      vibratory wavelenght. Dan Sherman's experience and commentary about loosing
      electromagnetic to the earth read like it too.
      Niburu is another entirely different scenario I'm not sure if I should
      believe.
      It may mean a different thing altogether than the feared doomsday aspect.
      Hmm
      I'll let you know if I'm communicated anything about it."

      This is very interesting Dex. And thanks for promising to keep us
      posted. But I think it is important for us to keep the distinctions between
      all these different concepts clear if we want to avoid their getting all
      mixed up together in our minds and becoming meaningless as a result.
      Already the confusion has reached dizzying proportions and a great deal of
      clearing-up work needs to be done. For example, "Nibiru" is the name of a
      physical planet that was conceived and defined by Sumerian scholar
      Zecchariah Sitchin. According to Sitchin, Nibiru is not due to return to
      the inner solar system for at least another thousand years. So why are some
      people proposing the imminent return of Nibiru? And why are they
      identifying it with "Planet X"? How can Nibiru be Planet X if Nibiru is not
      due to return for at least another thousand years but Planet X is supposed
      to be making a close fly-by of the earth and producing a pole-shift in less
      than four? Evidently "Nibiru" and "Planet X" are two different planets.
      But they have become conflated together in popular parlance, as demonstrated
      daily at the GT forum where members use them routinely as interchangeable
      names for the same planet.

      And then there is the question of what Planet X is actually supposed
      to be. First it is a "planet"; then it is a "brown dwarf", and then it is
      "red dwarf" that somehow shines with the same brilliance as the sun in
      photographs that are purported to show it! Where is the consistency among
      these perpetually shape-shifting concepts?

      Now you are introducing Hurtak's concept of a "null zone" to us,
      Dex. What is that meant to be exactly? And how is it different to the
      "dead zone" which some clairvoyants of the late 20th century were reporting
      existed in earth's timeline beyond the year 2017? Or how is it different
      to the "Proton Belt" and the "Photon Belt" of later fame? I ask these
      questions because I have noticed how popular names for exotic-sounding
      concepts keep morphing and mutating into one another without any clear cause
      or reason and the danger is that Hurtak's "null zone" may soon warp into
      something else in the popular mindset and take on a completely different
      meaning to the one that Hurtak intended for it, as has happened to Sitchin's
      concept of the planet Nibiru.

      "That second sun (son) came through like a bell, but, I only felt that is
      was meant as an oberservable announcement, really nothing more attached. Not
      yet that is."

      When the Higher Intelligence speaks to us in our dreams, it does so
      through the medium of symbols. These can often prove impossible for our
      ordinary minds to interpret properly after waking because our ordinary minds
      do not necessarily possess the key to the correct interpretation of the
      symbols. The symbol of the "second sun (son)" could mean many different
      things. How can we possibly know which one is the correct interpretation?

      Regan


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dex
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:27 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Cross Talk



      That's funny, when I see an opportuniy...Ted really admires the way you
      think and your writing skills.

      Apparently, because of the concern..The GT keeps finding more information
      coming through more about Niburu. I for one think it's a null zone that
      Hurtak convinced me of our world would be transitioning through to a higher
      vibratory wavelenght. Dan Sherman's experience and commentary about loosing
      electromagnetic to the earth read like it too.
      Niburu is another entirely different scenario I'm not sure if I should
      believe.
      It may mean a different thing altogether than the feared doomsday aspect.
      Hmm
      I'll let you know if I'm communicated anything about it. That second sun
      (son)
      came through like a bell, but, I only felt that is was meant as an
      oberservable announcement, really nothing more attached. Not yet that is.

      Dex

      >
      > Why Dex, I never thought you cared about such things as sentence
      >structure and punctuation! But thanks for the feedback. I see that I'll
      >have to polish up my literary skills and smarten up my presentation
      >considerably to meet the high standards that you are setting for me.
      >
      > Regan
      >
      >

      >
      > Ted wrote:
      >
      >Said , so perfectly
      >_________________
      >
      >Oh Yeah, but what about the sentence structuring?..a mess, and look at the
      >grammar..egads, and lets not forget his punctuation's..an atrocity....but
      >yeah, he said it nicely.
      >
      >haha
      >Dex
      >
      >Although I have not met DonDep in person as Bill has, I have read
      >> > enough of his postings at the Golden Thread forum to have formed the
      >same
      >> > impression of him as Bill has done, i.e. that he believes only what he
      >> > wants
      >> > to believe. I think Dex is probably correct in pointing out that we
      >all
      >> > do
      >> > this, but for me the point is that some of us want to believe only what
      >is
      >> > true regardless of what we might like to believe instead.......
      >(Snipped)
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Why Dex, I never thought you cared about such things as sentence
      > structure and punctuation! But thanks for the feedback. I see that I'll
      > have to polish up my literary skills and smarten up my presentation
      > considerably to meet the high standards that you are setting for me.
      >
      > Regan
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Dex
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:44 AM
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Cross Talk
      >
      >
      > Ted wrote:
      >
      > Said , so perfectly
      > _________________
      >
      > Oh Yeah, but what about the sentence structuring?..a mess, and look at the
      > grammar..egads, and lets not forget his punctuation's..an atrocity....but
      > yeah, he said it nicely.
      >
      > haha
      > Dex
      >
      > Although I have not met DonDep in person as Bill has, I have read
      > > > enough of his postings at the Golden Thread forum to have formed the
      > same
      > > > impression of him as Bill has done, i.e. that he believes only what he
      > > > wants
      > > > to believe. I think Dex is probably correct in pointing out that we
      > all
      > > > do
      > > > this, but for me the point is that some of us want to believe only
      what
      > is
      > > > true regardless of what we might like to believe instead.......
      > (Snipped)
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic