Support Cassiopaea!
Cassiopaea
relies completely on individual reader contributions. This allows
us to keep our independence.
Contributing
Editors
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Sam Montgomery
Joe Quinn
Henry See
Susan Jesson-Ward
Signs
of the Times
Articles
Esoteric
Christianity
To Be
or Not To Be
Splitting
Realities
Something
Wicked This Way Comes
Ascension
OPs:
The Other Race
Cosmic
COINTELPRO Timeline
Physics
of the Mysterious
Columns
Let the
Games Begin
Will
the World End on Thursday?
The Bogdanov
Singularity
Quantum
Future School
Support
The
Quantum Future School
|
 |
Hoagland, Hyperdimensionality,
Space and Time,
and Assorted Strange Connections
- Part II
|
|
Note
added August 29, 2001
Lynn Picknett
and Clive Prince Critique the C's
Ark and Laura respond
This
page continues the discussion of Hoagland
- Part I
07.18.98
Q: (L) Okay, we want to ask about this Donestra named in the
Imbrogno book.
A: Symbolic moniker. So is Solarion.
Q: (L) What is the source of this contact with this guy D F who
channels this Donestra?
A: Source is partially 5th density, partially 4th density.
Q: (L) Is he really channeling Franz Liszt?
A: No. Mental imprint from hyperspace.
Q: (L) What was this device that came into his room that floated
in front of his face and made the sound?
A: 4th density imprinting device.
Q: (L) What was it imprinting?
A: Knowledge.
Q: (L) Well, I would like to play like Franz Liszt! Why haven't
we had something like this? I want one of these!
A: You do not get to choose the nature of interaction with 4th
density STS! Unless of course hamsters, chirpy little birds in
cages and sweet, sad, dependent doggie "friends" get
to choose the nature of their interactions with you!
Q: (L) So, you are comparing Mr. D F to a hamster, a bird, or
a doggie?
A: It is the same thing.
Q: (L) And, he seems to be very obedient! (T) So, they are just
jerking him and other people around through him.
A: Yes.
Q: (L)Okay, another thing that Imbrogno noted was that they graphed
the UFO sightings in this area, and what they found was that
they occurred in these places over and over again. So, the guy
goes out and investigates the sites and found, more often than
not, these standing stones or stone chambers that have been connected
to the ancient Celts. Now, this relates to my work with tracking
the bloodlines in a way. The remark was made that dancing could
charge the stones. But, some of these chambers are sometimes
so small. My idea is that they are doorways.
A: Okay.
Q: (L) Well, there was a considerable series of sightings of
these black boomerang type craft. Are these stones markers of
doorways between densities?
A: Windows.
Q: (L) Do these windows open and close arbitrarily?
A: Electrical storm.
Q: (L) Can they be opened and closed by deliberate, engineered
factors?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What is the connection between the Celts and these flying
black boomerangs?
A: None.
Q: (L) Then why is it that the Celts seem to have been the ones
who erected these stones, and the stones and chambers seem to
be connected with the black boomerangs?
A: If you build a house, then someone comes along and installs
a 220 volt plug in it, what connection do you have with the clothes
dryer?
Q: (T) Two different things. You build a house, somebody comes
along and installs an improvement and uses it in another way.
A: Crystals make density and dimensional windows open from "time
to time" thus making the oblivious quite obvious.
Q: (L) Are the craft always there and the crystalline structure
of the stone causes the windows to open and make them visible?
A: If certain factors mitigate...
08.01.98
Q: Now, in a previous session when we were talking about the
initial discussion about the brown dwarf, you compared the companion
star to an electron. In the discussion of the electron, you said
that an electron emits gravity. Recently you said that this companion
star does not radiate. But, does it emit gravity?
A: Radiation is at lower end of scale, and gravity is present.
Q: I was reading about the interactions between twin star systems,
and it is conjectured that when a companion star approaches its
primary, that the primary star 'robs' something from it. There
are even photographs of gases flowing from the smaller star to
the larger. Is this the case with this particular system?
A: Was.
Q: And it is now no longer the case?
A: Barely.
Q: I also read about these WIMPs, or Weakly Interactive Massive
Particles, that they say are at the core of the sun, and that
somehow they modulate the sun's internal temperature. Do these
WIMPs exist?
A: All exists which is imagined.
Q: (A) When looking for clues about Lodz, we came upon these
pages of the guy from Lodz, whom I know. He speculates about
faster than light particles. The main hypothesis is that neutrinos
really travel faster than light. Is this the case?
FASTER
THAN LIGHT: Richard Kerner
(left) and Jakub
Rembielinski (right) at ASI
conference in Goslar, Germany, July 1996. Richard Kerner
is best known as the one who developed the formalism of non-Abelian
Kaluza-Klein
theory, based on ideas of De Witt and Tulczyjew. Jakub Rembielinski,
among other things, developed the theory of a tachyonic neutrino.
|
A: This is opening a doorway to hyperspace. Combine with those
on the pathway of wormholes.
Q: (L) There have been a couple of movies that we have seen lately,
'The Sphere,' and 'Event Horizon,' about spaceships that go into
black holes and then re-emerge with some very strange things
going on. The whole idea of a space ship going into a black hole
just sort of boggles my mind. I would like to know what would
be experienced by a person or space ship that goes into a black
hole? What would it be like?
A: Disintegration, followed by conversion to anti-material energy.
Q: (L) So it would not come out on the other side in another
universe? (A) It will.
A: Yes, but not as matter.
Q: (L) After something has gone into a black hole, can it then
re-emerge into the material universe intact?
A: No.
Q: (L) So, once it's gone in the black hole, it's sayonara, hasta
la vista?
A: Stars are also portals of this nature.
Q: (L) So, what we perceive as stars in the anti-matter universe
would be black holes?
A: No, windows.
Q: (A) You mentioned hyperspace. What is hyperspace?
A: 4th through 7th density, except 4th only perceives it, as
"living in the doorway."
Q: (L) You say that stars are portals. What, specifically, are
they portals for, of, from or to?
A: How about other dimension. Remember, density and dimensional
concepts intersect. Density level relates more to conscious awareness,
but dimensions house consciousness and all other.
Q: (L) So, you can have many 'houses' along a row at one level
and many at another level, in a vague sort of way?
A: Close. Think of hyperspace as 4th dimension.
Q: (A) Now, this business that space/time geometry builds a kind
of singularity, changes the algebraic structure of the metric
tensor; and I was trying to relate it to changing of density
at some point...
A: Yes. The answer is in the pentagon.
Q: (L) Do you mean 'pentagon' as in the government building,
or as in the geometric structure?
A: Why do you suppose they are linked? Why is the "pentagon"
a pentagon?
Q: (L) I don't know. Why is it?
A: Answers are within your grasp.
Q: (A) What was this answer 'yes' to the changing of density?
Do you mean that it relates to what S___ was working on or that
it connect to Kaluza
Klein theories?
A: Both. Geometry... pentagon and hexagon, algebraic equations...
08.15.98
Q: (A) Now, I was following another clue, Einstein's 1936 paper
then describing Einstein-Rosen
Bridge.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) This is a bridge between two different realms, so to say.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) But there is nothing in this idea, really, that relates
to hyperspace in the sense of fifth dimensions, pentagons, hexagons.
At least I could not see it.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) So there is another piece of information which has to
be put together with this idea?
A: Yes.
08.22.98
Q: There is a remark in this Graham Hancock book about the pyramids
which says here regarding the issue about iron: 'It is unsettling
to discover in the Pyramid Texts, supposedly the work of Neolithic
farmers who had hardly begun to master copper, that there were
abundant references to iron. The name of it was B'ja, or the
'Divine Metal.' We always encounter it in distinctive context
to astronomy. For example, B'ja is frequently mentioned in the
text in connection to the 'Four Sons of Horus,' presumably related
in some way to strange beings known as the Shemsu Hor, or the
'Followers of Horus,' or the 'Transfigured Ones.' At any rate,
these very mysterious 'Sons of Horus' seem to have been made
of iron or to have had iron fingers. [...] It is clear that iron
was somehow seen by the composers of the Pyramid Texts as being
imperative in the rituals aimed at ensuring new life cosmic and
stellar. The verses of the Texts connect the metal and its uses
to the ancient prototype of all such rituals by means of which
Osiris himself, Egypt's 'Once and Future King,' died and was
restored to immortal life as Lord of the Sky Region of Orion.
'The doors of iron which are in the starry sky are thrown open
for me and I go through them.' It appears to be nothing less
than an iron stargate intended to admit Osiris and all the dynasty
of dead kings after him into the celestial realms of the belt
of Orion. But, if the Pyramid Texts are describing a stargate,
they are also describing a timegate for they express no doubt
that by passing through the iron portals of the sky, the soul
of the deceased will attain a life of millions of years.' So,
they are describing the Pyramid as a stargate, a timegate, a
portal. However, they are doing so in figurative terms, that
the person could mentally travel, or use this in some way. Could
you comment on this bit about the iron stargate?
A: Iron is highly magnetic.
Q: Yes, we know that...
A: Opens doorways or portals.
Q: Were the Egyptians using the Pyramids to travel in time?
A: Maybe in a crude sense, more like an oracle.
Q: They say that there is a subterranean chamber under the sphinx
that leads to all the other pyramids. Is this correct?
A: Yes. But more importantly, there is a buried capsule of sorts.
Q: Has this buried capsule been found?
A: Not uncovered, but the evidence exists.
Q: Are those Egyptians over there who are banning all the other
people from excavating aware of this?
A: They fear ramifications.
Q: (L) Now, you said that the pyramid was built 10,643 years
ago. That would be 8,649 BC. Is that a correct figure, or was
there any corruption?
A: Yes. Correct.
Q: Then you talked about the pyramid as a focuser of energy to
do 'all things' or many things. Later we asked about Stonehenge
and you said that StoneHenge was built 8,000 BC by Druids, an
early Aryan group, as an energy director to do 'all things.'
This seems to be that both structures had similar design functions.
Is that correct?
A: No. Stonehenge is a vector of energy derived from Solar and
Cosmic rays. Pyramids focus electromagnetic energy from the atmosphere
ambiently.
Q: If it was built in 8,000 BC, and the Pyramids were built 8,649
BC, which is 10,643 years ago, more or less, that means that
they were built at almost the same time, or at least within 600
years of each other. If they were built at almost the same time,
were they built by the same, or similar groups of people?
A: Atlantean descendants.
Q: Obviously the Great Pyramid is a marvel of engineering - and
Stonehenge is as well - yet the two structures are so dissimilar.
The Pyramid presents such a finished and sharp and elegant appearance,
and Stonehenge might give a person - of course that is based
on how it appears today - a more primitive presentation.
A: Was not originally.
Q: Did they work in conjunction with one another and did the
two groups that built them in communication with one another?
A: No and yes. Offshoots of same group.
Q: Were they antagonistic toward one another or were they friendly
toward one another?
A: No, yes.
Q: If the flood of Noah, as you have
said before, occurred 10,662 BC, that means that the Pyramid
and Stonehenge were built more than 2,000 years after this event.
A: Yes.
Q: Did it take 2,000 years for them to develop or create the
technology?
A: No.
Q: What were they doing in those 2,000 years?
A: Reassembling.
Q: In that 2,000 years of reassembling, do you mean reassembling
as a group through reincarnative processes...
A: All. Built using sound wave technology.
Q: When you say that it was built using sound wave technology,
were these sound waves produced by human voices or by instruments
or mechanical devices of some sort?
A: Mostly latter.
Q: What kind of a device would this be? What would you call it?
A: Something like tuning fork.
Q: It would be something that could be struck and would produce
a sound that could then be directed in some way?
A: A sound enhancing collector/focuser. Must be like a two-way
antenna; solidly brass or bronze.
Q: Other than a solid piece of metal, were there any other internal
parts such as a mechanism of some sort?
A: Silicon arterial wand.
Q: (A) Can we see somewhere a picture of this?
A: No pictures exist to where you have access.
Q: (L) Was the pyramid itself ever used as a sounding mechanism,
the chambers?
A: Not exactly.
Q: How many chambers or cells are there in the Great Pyramid?
A: 19.
Q: So, there are some that have not been found yet. Now, according
to this book, the 'Message of the Sphinx,'they are saying that
the orientation of the pyramid complex which includes the Sphinx,
designates or denotes a time, or replicates on the ground the
pattern of Orion related to the constellation of Leo exactly
10,500 years ago. What is the significance of this date 10,500
years ago?
A: Complex, but what about Orion?!?
Q: What about Orion?
A: For you to surmise. No. Now you should study all you can about
supernovae.
Q: Okay, there was a mention of a supernovae in this book. Was
there a supernova at that particular time?
A: Maybe, but the real question should be: Will there be one
again, and soon?
Q: They have said that this designates the lowest point of Orion
in the precessional cycle, the nadir of the cycle, and that the
midheaven would be 2400 AD. If you have the representation of
this precessional nadir, what is the next 'notch' on the clock?
Is it going to be the midheaven of the cycle 400 years or so
from now?
A: Best not to assume without adequate date.
Q: Okay. Well, the other thing that they mentioned was that this
orientation of the Sphinx and the Pyramids dealt with what is
called 'Zep Tepi.' It says: 'In their most profound and beautiful
religious texts, the ancient Egyptians spoke of the Time of the
Gods, Zep Tepi, or the First Time, with the unshakeable conviction
that there had indeed been such an epoch. In other words, they
believed that Zep Tepi had been an actual historical event. In
line with their prevailing dualism, they also believed that it
had been projected and recorded in the catalogue of the starry
sky, and it was a story that was reenacted endlessly in the cosmic
setting by the cyclical displays of the celestial orbs and the
constellations. What they had in mind was a kind of Cosmic Passion
Play in which each main character was identified with a specific
celestial body. Zep Tepi was regarded as a mysterious and golden
age that had immediately followed creation.' What can you comment
about this Zep Tepi? Was Zep Tepi the time of the first civilization
that had existed immediately after creation?
A: You are pursuing a "dead end" there.
Q: Okay, we will study supernovae. (A) I have a question: A piece
from Einstein's biography says that in 1931, Einstein and Mayer
re-formulated Kaluza five dimensional theory, retaining a four-dimensional
space- time. I would like to know if it was a step back or a
step forward when they did this?
A: Step back, then forward.
Q: (A) Next question: three weeks ago you mentioned pentagons
and hexagons. I have here a pentagon and a mathematical formula
under pentagon which for me, relates to a pentagon, and it has
x, y, z, three dimension; time, which is one dimension, and perhaps
the fifth dimension, which corresponds to the fifth. Is this
association of pentagon with this mathematical symbol below correct?
A: Yes. Gravity waves, pentagon is the foundation; hexagon is
the conclusion.
Q: (A) I want to go back to this little mathematical formula
here. I have here a plus or minus and I don't know which sign
to take in front of this field variable. Should it be plus like
x,y and z, or should it be minus, like with t?
A: Minus.
Q: (A) Related to these gravity waves, in 1936 Einstein wrote
a paper which was rejected, in which he claims to have discovered
that there are no gravity waves. Should gravity be quantized
as other fields?
A: It can be.
Q: (A) But, if it is quantized, it will be gravitons, and you
said that there are no gravitons...
A: Gravitons are really electrons within a time vacuum.
Q: (A) Physicists today and for the past 5 or 10 years have been
trying to build a theory of everything which is built on the
idea of strings - that everything is composed of oscillating
strings - they call it SuperString Theory. Is the idea of strings
any good?
A: No.
Q: (A) Now, in many of these internet papers we find the name
of Bearden. I have here a page: Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics
to Tap Vacuum Energy. [Reads abstract] This guy wrote several
books and several papers. Is there any truth in what he is saying?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Is it worthwhile to study?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Is his idea of scalar electromagnetics sound?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Okay, going back to the pyramid. In the Pyramid Texts,
when they talk about the 'Boat of Millions of Years,' what are
they talking about?
A: Time machine.
Q: (L) Who were the 'Followers of Horus?'
A: Those who held the 3rd "insight."
Q: (L) What was the third insight?
A: There are 10. The 3rd involves transcendental existence.
Q: (L) The Pyramid Texts also talk about the 'Duat.' What is
this?
A: Scene of martyrdom.
Q: (L) They also talk about the 'Seven Sages.' You once said
that Perceval was 'knighted in the Court of Seven' and that the
sword's points signify 'crystal transmitter of truth beholden.'
Do these seven sages relate to this 'Court of Seven' that you
mentioned?
A: Close.
Q: (L) When you said 'swords points signify crystal transmitter
of truth beholden,' could you elaborate on that remark?
A: Has celestial meaning.
Q: (L) Also since the layout of the pyramids and the Sphinx seems
to indicate that the constellation of Leo is in some way very
significant, does this relate in any way to your remark that
your 'next stop: Leo,' that we should 'call Leo?'
A: Getting warmer.
Q: (L) Okay, since you said that the Sphinx symbolized a religion,
or worship of a god named Endurra which just 'fizzled out,' how
can this be reconciled with the obvious celestial relationship
to this monument and this whole Giza complex. It seems that there
is a far deeper meaning to the Sphinx than just the worship of
a feline principle that just 'fizzled out.' Comment please?
A: It "fizzled" because the kept secrets faded.
Q: (A) Here is a picture of a pyramid, and they ask what this
hieroglyph means. [Picture of a man pointing to something] What
does it mean?
A: Passage to higher levels.
09.12.98
Q: (L) In the middle of the night the other night as I was going
to sleep, I thought of something that you guys once said about
the Denver airport, TDARM, that both sides can use airports and
that the meaning was 'much, much deeper than that.' It made me
think of what you had said before about planets and stars being
windows or doorways. Is it possible that there are points in
deep recesses or underground places of our planet where one can
enter a portal and emerge through a portal on another planet
or system. Are the centers of planets and stars the emergences
of wormholes or something?
A: If utilized as such.
Q: (C) So it would have to be intentional. Is anyone utilizing
them as such?
A: Maybe...
Q: (A) What is so particular about the center of a planet as
opposed to the center of a snowball. Both are balls, one is just
a little bit larger than the other. A planet is a big ball, a
snowball is a small ball.
A: Have you ever tried to melt a planet in your hand?
Q: (A) No, because a planet is a little bit bigger than my hand.
What is so particular about a planet. It is just a piece of matter
like a snowball is a piece of matter.
A: Magnetic field gravity profile.
Q: (L) What is the magnetic field gravity profile?
A: Intensity and... here comes that word... density.
Q: (L) Well, off to the side, just what IS at the core of our
planet?
A: Fluid crystalline gas core.
Q: (L) And what is this fluid crystalline gas core composed of?
A: Methane and ammonia.
Q: (L) How does methane and ammonia be crystalline?
A: They can be under the correct magnetic conductivity.
Q: (C) Can the condition found at the core be duplicated on the
surface of the planet?
A: No.
Q: (C) So you couldn't achieve the proper magnetic conductivity?
A: Right.
Q: (L) What is so particular about methane and ammonia that it
composes the core?
A: Methane binds to the ammonium crystals.
Q: (L) Well, that's the bizarrest thing I ever heard!
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, it's right up there in the top ten! (C) Was that
the beginning of the formation of the earth when the methane
bound to the ammonium crystals?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, how did it get there?
A: Methane collected at the core after cooling. Buoyancy is determined
by gravitational profile. This is why Jupiter and Saturn, for
example, both of which are less dense than the Earth, but have
immensely stronger gravitational fields, have atmospheres consisting
of ammonia as the dominant gas.
Q: (L) How does this very strange core in the earth relate to
gravity waves?
A: Well, the wave is an integral factor of the excitation of
the basic substance.
Q: (L) Are you saying that excitation of these substances produce
gravity waves?
A: Excitation of the environment produces a wave of the foundational
entity of that environment.
Q: (L) What is the foundational entity of the environment of
this core?
A: Same as all others. 7th density.
Q: (A) I have a problem with this Saturn and Jupiter. If they
are less dense, but have stronger gravitational fields. According
to what I know their gravitational field is stronger because
they are bigger. So, even though they are less dense, they have
more mass and their gravitational field is stronger. And that
is all.
A: Yes this is true.
Q: (A) Well, they said that this is true what I said...
A: How does what we said conflict with what you said?
Q: (A) What they say, if they are really gasses then the planet
must be bigger, but they say it has a stronger gravity field
because of that.
A: No, no, no. We did not say it has a stronger gravity field
because of that. Review, please!
Q: (C) Okay, buoyancy. I guess that if we were to walk on Jupiter
or Saturn we would be more or less buoyant than on the Earth?
(L) Now wait a minute. We were asking about this core, and we
were curious as to how this methane could be at the core because
we perceive methane as being 'fluffy,' or buoyant... (C) But
it is bound to the ammonium crystals... (L) And they said that
buoyancy was determined by gravitational profile. Jupiter and
Saturn have atmospheres consisting of ammonia as the dominant
gas because buoyancy is determined by gravitational profile.
(C) What does buoyancy have to do with the binding of methane
and ammonia or with the gravitational profile. (L) That is HUGELY
confusing! What is the gravitational profile of Jupiter or Saturn,
for example, as contrasted to the gravitational profile of the
Earth?
A: They are much stronger gravitationally.
Q: (L) Is this gravitational profile of Jupiter and Saturn related
in a direct way to the ammonia?
A: Indirectly.
Q: (C) Why didn't their ammonia bind with the methane and sink
to the core?
A: Because density affects buoyancy.
Q: (L) The buoyancy of what?
A: The gases.
Q: (L) Why are they less dense?
A: Because of their size juxtaposed with their environment relative
to their distance from Sol.
Q: (L) Why did the impact of the comet Shoemacher-Levy, in this
ammonia environment produce superluminal effects that were measured
on these instruments by these Russian scientists?
A: Ponder based upon what we have given you. Now refer to your
knowledge base regarding microdynamic atomic physics.
Q: (A) I want to ask about this macrodynamics. In microdynamics
we have Planck's constant and it is very small, and this is why
we have quantum jumps and quantum events in microdynamics. But
there is this concept of macrodynamics, perhaps we have probability
waves and quantum jumps on a macro scale. This is something which
we don't know...
A: Yet.
Q: (A) So there is something like Planck's Constant but much
bigger that converts on a macro scale?
A: Something like that. And if this is food for thought, you
have been presented with a veritable feast tonight.
12.05.98
Q: (A) At some point we were asking about this magnetic grid
of the earth, and we were told that the grid lines are located
about every 200 miles, and that it is a regular pattern of lines...
A: Yes, but those are primary. What happens at the poles?
Q: (A) At the poles, these lines converge, and the pattern becomes
more complex, I suspect.
A: Convergence.
Q: (A) Okay, they converge at the poles, and probably go inside.
A: In atmosphere, there is undulation. At core, there is primary
convergence, and that is also your doorway/bridge.
Q: (A) Core of the Earth?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) These lines that are being drawn, are they just one dimensional
lines, or are they a plane that crosses the Earth along these
lines?
A: Latter.
Q: (A) Well, I wanted to make sure because, when we were directed
to this place and the term 'magnetic meridian' was brought up,
and we asked the question as to where the zero magnetic meridian
was located, we were told that it was at about 90 degrees East
longitude which is in the Indian Ocean. Is this correct?
A: All those lovely, shimmering oceans intersect around a lovely
island with really inexpensive real estate!
Q: (A) I have no idea what that means! [Laura stops and gets
the Atlas and examines the area in question.] (L) Okay, the only
island I can see that those lovely shimmering oceans intersect
around, in the terms in which you have expressed it, is Antarctica.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, this brings us to the question about the Piri Reis
map. We wanted to know the origin of this map?
A: Complex, but the origin would date back to 14,000 B.C.
Q: (A) Atlantis?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Was this map drawn when Antarctica was NOT covered by
ice?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Why was it not covered by ice? (A) Because the climate
was warmer.
A: Technologically achieved.
Q: (L) Why would somebody want to technologically warm Antarctica
if the whole rest of the planet was available for use? What is
so special about Antarctica?
A: The whole rest of the planet was available for use? Not hardly.
Q: (L) Why was the rest of the planet not available for use?
A: Ice.
Q: (A) Much of the planet was covered by ice, but not all.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, instead of using the areas that were NOT covered by
ice, why, in particular, was Antarctica...
Q: (L) What I am getting at is: why go to all the trouble to
thaw out a whole big island if it might have been easier to have
been somewhere else?
A: Is it not obvious by now? Magnetic power grid physics . EM
utilization. Crystals, and the like. Seeking paths to the interior?
The "Poles" know best! EM generators usually employ
a grid. 'Tis for field creation
Q: (A) When you say this, you mean A grid, not THE grid?
A: Yes. Looks like a waffle iron.
Q: (A) You mean like a waffle iron that is used in transformers?
A: Okay. Why? To duplicate nature. Earth has a web, and so doeth
thee!
Q: (A) Now, Earth's grid is just an imaginary grid related to
field, or just a mathematic grid... no, it must really exist....
A: Yes.
Q: (A) If it really exists, is it a field of grid, or is it a
grid made out of some matter, like these waffle irons? Just field,
or matter?
A: Both. The iron is attracted, not attractive.
Q: (A) Okay, I want to ask about the Whittaker papers of 1903,
about solutions of wave equations, and this relates to this Bearden
who is talking about anti-gravity and zero point energy devices.
At some point, you told us that there was something in this.
Bearden speculates that this Whittaker's ideas were useful. I
obtained copies and I am studying them, and they are quite interesting..
Is this something that is worthwhile or another red herring?
A: No. They are worth it.
Q: (A) Recently, by a strange chance, I was pointed to a guy
in Brazil who wrote some papers about superluminal waves. He
writes a lot of papers about it... and he even says that he believes
that superluminal waves can be used technologically pretty soon.
Any comment this particular guy, is he on the right track?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) What about quaternions? Lord Hamilton invented quaternions,
and this Bearden tells us that Maxwell wrote his equation using
these quaternions, and his original papers are hidden from us
by the government; that Maxwell knew more than we are told. Is
this really the case?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Are these quaternions useful?
A: Partly, but there is a missing link.
Q: (A) Sure. Now, I was thinking today about this Whittaker discovery,
and whether I should work on linking it to the pentagons and
hexagons. Is it the missing link? Or, did you mean another missing
link?
A: Well, linking the geometric factors you speak of is wise,
but there are other links missing as well.
07.03.99
Q: My first question is regarding this diagram of the pyramid
here and this second diagram of the pyramid as we know it and
this book about the pyramid where it says: 'In 1974 the Danish
professor, Hubert Paulsen, a retired architect, announced following
extensive research within the pyramid, his theory that an undiscoverd
chamber existed, probably beneath its foundations. He based his
theory on the geometric principle upon which the pyramid was
built. This chamber may have been the pharoah's tomb and may
contain treasures even more remarkable than those found in Tutanhamen's
tomb.' Anyway, this was a 1974 study of the pyramid. This is
the only 1974 study I have come across since you suggested that
we look for something done in 1974 regarding the pyramid, though
you mentioned an 'engineer,' so I was first thinking that it
must be Robert Beauval's work, since he is an engineer. I suppose
that an architect could be a sort of engineer. Is this the study
that you had in mind?
A: Paulsen could use further perusal.
Q: Of these two diagrams of the interior of the pyramid, this
one was taken from a booklet published in 1861 which describes
a great cavity in the center of the pyramid. When people were
visiting the pyramid at that point in time, was this, in fact,
the configuration of the interior of the pyramid?
A: Close.
Q: Is it still configured that way but that portion of it is
blocked off or concealed from visitors at the present?
A: Close.
Q: Do the present excavators and archaeologists and workers over
there know about these other chambers in the pyramid?
A: Some.
Q: Is there a large chamber under the pyramid concealing some
sort of artifacts?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this a treasure or is this information?
A: Either/or.
Q: Are the people who are working in or around the pyramid at
the present time aware of this deeply hidden underground chamber
in the pyramid?
A: Only a few.
Q: There is one woman whose writings are posted on the internet
and she claims that the pyramid is a 'great clock' and that it
would 'reset the time' of the planet.
A: No.
Q: Well, she claims that she has been given information that
there once existed some kind of a great gear or wheel that was
set in the Grand Gallery and that it would roll or something
in the notches found there. If that is not the case, what were
these notches for?
A: Levelling principle.
Q: Levelling of what? They were used to set a level of something?
When something was put in the notches, it set the level of something?
A: Close.
Q: Was what was placed in these notches, these holes some type
of a bar-type object that crossed the gallery from side to side?
A: You do not have the base data yet. Be patient. It will come
to you.
Q: What is the base data?
A: Clues will lead you there, not proclamations.
Q: I would just like to have some sort of visual image of what
was placed in this gallery...
A: We know you would.
Q: Everybody in the world is posting crazy, bizarre theories
on the internet, and writing these elaborate web pages about
their visions and their information from other 'sources,' and
that the pyramid is a giant bell, or a clock that resets time,
and so on and on....
A: Hoagland.
Q: Fine with Hoagland! He was on the radio the other night saying
that Leedskallen moved his Coral Castle because he wanted to
align it with Hoagland's proposed theory about the Miami circle.
That is clearly foolishness since Hilliard told us the whole
inside story about the moving of the Coral Castle as it was told
to him directly by Leedskallen, and that it was because of some
county regulatory reasons. Yet Hoagland is out there trying to
squeeze even THAT into his ideas! I think he is just capitalizing
on the publicity! I mean, Hoagland and a whole slew of them are
out there asking for "scientific attention." We sent
two faxes from the University offering to become involved, even
at risk of losing face in the mainstream scientific community;
the offer was free - no strings attached - and we did not even
receive the courtesy of a "thanks very much, but we already
have someone!"
A: Whatever else you find true about Hoagland, just remember
that genius resides adjacent to insanity!
Q: (A) What is the meaning of this remark about Hoagland?
A: Some of his stuff may be "poppycock," but some is
right on the money, honey!
Q: (L) Well, what did Hoagland ever say about the pyramid? (A)
He said that the way the Coral Castle was built was the same
way the pyramid was built. (L) Well, we know that because Leedskallen
said that himself! That's not news. Hoagland talks about this
19.5 degree latitude line and this double tetrahedron, but I
don't know how that relates to something that is located at about
29 degrees of latitude such as the pyramid. That's about 10 degrees
off. Has Hoagland ever opined about the pyramid itself?
A: Look it up!
Q: Okay. We will. But there's only so many hours in the day!
We don't have time to waste pussyfooting around.
07.10.99
Q: (A) Now, next question relates to the story of creation which
L wrote for the website, and I was reading it and trying to make
sense, to make it not contradictory, and I found that it is not
easy because many of the concepts that are used during these
sessions are somehow contradictory to each other or they don't
quite fit with the standard meanings of these concepts, so I
wanted to ask for some explanation. First, we were told that
gravity is essentially the most universal force and that it is
from this that everything originates...
A: Gravity is the binder.
Q: (A) But, my question is: gravity is a term that is defined
in dictionaries and encyclopedias and is a term which has a very
precise meaning for physicists and mathematicians. I want to
know if you are talking about the same thing or if you are using
the term 'gravity' to describe something completely different
that we know as gravity. Are we talking about the same thing?
A: Well, are you certain these "definitions" you speak
of are not limited?
Q: (A) Yes, I am sure they are limited. Nevertheless, they are
precisely defined concepts and you are using the same term 'gravity,'
so I am asking if we are talking about the same thing, or if
you are talking about something completely different?
A: How about a great expansion upon the same concept?
Q: (A) Okay. That answered my question. So, we are using the
same thing, but for you it is more adequate or so. Now, I want
to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that
we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the
gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of
this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by
geometry?
A: Geometry is the correct model.
Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this
way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to
model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in
such a model of gravity, or is it something extra?
A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization
of the gravity model. The model, if completed, would give one
an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity
and consciousness.
Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry,
mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one
could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric
model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the
geometric model of consciousness.
Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists
that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness.
From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not
necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric
model of extended gravity.
A: No, not extended, expanded.
Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding
the modelling of consciousness?
A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory.
Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond. The currently
imposed protocol for "proving" theories is a bit passe,
we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first
prove that there is a sky?
Q: (C) So, don't try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and
use it, I guess.
A: Pretty close.
Q: (A) Are you laughing at quantum theory?
A: No. We are lauging at 3rd density scientific protocol!
Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one
more question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity?
What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric
model?
A: First of all, you live in a "matter" universe, from
your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which
you largely are unable to perceive as of yet.
Q: (A) But, my question was ...
A: Who/what is Mandlebrot??
Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly...
A: Are we?
Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is
famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern
fractals and chaos. But, as to 'what' - some fractal images are
also called 'mandlebrot.'
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and
such things.
A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?
Q: (C) What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are
saying?
A: Be careful of the quotemarks, they bring you to the crossroads.
As in: "you take the high road, I'll take the low road,
and I'll be in Scotland before ye."
Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation
of 'half-life,' but that there is a pun, a clue intended here
that is to be deciphered.
A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence
all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Q: (L) That brings me to a little question that I want to insert
here. You have said that Service to Others means 'giving all
to those who ask.' We are asking, so why aren't you giving all?
A: Not quite. Cannot abridge free will!
Q: (L) Well, my free will says that I want all the secrets of
existence! I mean, other people are channeling sources that just
dump endless answers to anything and everything...
A: Other people are channeling ________..
Q: (C) It's a new breakfast cereal! (A) Now, the two main concepts
that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use
the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and
mathematicians use it.
A: Phi.
Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which
is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio...
A: Carbonari.
Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi
is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what
I said was that the way you are using the term 'dimensions' is
not what physicists are familiar with in using this term.
A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses
that word to mean different things from the physicists!
Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don't see how that is
connected.
A: No, not phi, dimensions!
Q: (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from
all the things that you have said about it...
A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public
definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context
that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we
were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein
theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions,
and at another point it was implied that different dimensions
meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely
many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in
some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were
like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there
are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of
dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are
infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not
infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these
seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely
many of them as well?
A: No.
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there
are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from
some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept
of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities
were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws
that apply in the various densities; the higher the density,
the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of
gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
A: Okay.
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept
of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities
with slices of different geometric properties, in particular
slices with different properties of the distance.
A: Yes...
Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same
direction as we have been discussing... they are almost on the
same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the
other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without
having access to channeling?
A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel
without knowing it.
Q: (A) Today, on this list there was a guy by the name of Boyd
who talks about his shamanistic experiences in talking to rocks.
He doesn't sound whacko, but he talks to these stones on a daily
basis and these stones talk to him, and these rocks have consciousness,
they have memories. I wrote to him, but I would like to know
if his experiences are authentic and not just his imagination?
A: That is a very broad question, which assumes limits or barriers
where none may exist.
Q: (L) Is anyone able to tune into the consciousness of rocks?
A: What if they are really tuning to a consciousness through
the rocks?
Q: (A) To A consciousness? Whose consciousness or what consciousness?
Universal consciousness?
A: Another.
Q: (A) Another consciousness. (L) Do rocks have consciousness?
A: Refer to material re: 1st density.
Q: (L) Yes, well it has been previously said that 1st density
does have consciousness... that even rocks have consciousness
and can learn. That brings us back to Boyd, is he, can he, does
he tune into the consciousness of rocks and/or other consciousnesses
THROUGH rocks?
A: The latter is closer.
Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable
to communicating.
A: Right.
Q: (L) What other consciouness might a person tune into through
a rock? ANY other or a specific other?
A: Closer to former.
Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness
unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with
some body of some density. Can one tune to consciousness that
resides, so to say, in higher densities than third, using rocks?
Is it possible?
A: Close.
Q: (A) So, you can tune to dead dudes or Cassiopaeans. (L) Is
the consciousness of human beings something that has cycled from
minerals to plants through animals to evolve into consciousness
of 3rd density mind, as we understand it?
A: In a roundabout way.
Q: (L) Was each of us, sitting here, at any point in the remote
past, using time loosely, a critter, so to speak, or a plant
or a tree?
A: You still be a critter, baby!
Q: (L) So, leaving out time, the stream of consciousness that
makes us as individual units, branches out and extends into lower
densities, or connects to them like a tree?
A: Maybe.
Q: (A) Concerning these rocks, I want to ask about this DNA phantom
effect that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with
lasers into this vaccum and record photons with detectors. It
detects noise because there is nothing coherent. Then, they put
a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a certain regular structure.
So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA molecule
in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure
of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they
continue to obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though
something was still there. They call it the 'phantom DNA.'
A: The "phantom" is a remnant of the consciousness
residue contained within the DNA structure.
Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the
vibrations of the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside
the vacuum, in some nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this
remnant? What keeps it? Space itself?
A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
Q: (C) Wouldn't it be like leaving an impression in a cushion?
(A) Yes, but this is a vacuum. (L) I guess that a vacuum isn't
what we think it is. There is something there that is not amenable
to our perception. (A) So, consciousness resides in a DNA structure.
(C) Well, going back to the rocks, is not all consciousness connected?
(A) Yes, but the funny thing about these rocks is that they have
the ability of tuning one consciousness to another consciousness
so that even if, in principle, all consciousness is one consciousness,
yet there are separate consciousness units, which at some level
they connect, yet at our level they seem to be separate, so there
is something about rocks. (C) Maybe its the fact that they are
so simple. (A) Yes. But, it seems that a rock would do it, but
dirt would not, so what is so special about rocks? (L) Okay,
this anthropologist, Michael Harner, was doing some field work,
and it says here that Harner went to the Peruvian Amazon to study
the culture of the Conibo Indians. After a year or so he had
made little headway in understanding their religious system,
when the Conibo told him 'if he really wanted to learn, he had
to drink ahayahuasca. Harner accepted, not without fear because
the people had warned him that the experience was terrifying.
The following evening, under the strict supervision of his indigenous
friends, he drank the equivalent of a third of a bottle. After
several minutes he found himself flying into a world of true
hallucinations. After arriving in a celestial cavern where a
supernatural carnival of demons was in full swing, he saw two
strange boats floating through the air that combined to form
a huge dragon headed prow not unlike that of a Viking ship. On
the deck he could make out large numbers of people with the heads
of bluejays and the bodies of humans, not unlike the bird-headed
gods of ancient Egyptian tomb paintings. After multiple episodes,
which would be too long to describe here, Harner became convinced
that he was dying. He tried calling out to his Conibo friends
for an antidote without managing to pronounce a word. Then he
saw that his visions emanated from giant reptilian creatures
that resided at the lowest depths of his brain. These creatures
began projecting scenes in front of his eyes while informing
him that this information was reserved for the dying and the
dead. 'First, they showed me the planet Earth as it was aeons
ago before there was any life on it. I saw an ocean, barren land,
and a bright blue sky. Then black specks dropped from the sky
by the hundreds and landed in front of me on the barren landscape.
I could see that the specks were actually large, shiny black
creatures with stubby pterodactyl-like wings and huge whale-like
bodies. They explained to me in a kind of thought language, that
they were fleeing from something from out in space. They had
come to the planet earth to escape their enemy. The creatures
then showed me how they had created life on the planet in order
to hide within the multitudinour forms, and thus disguise their
presence. Before me, the magnificence of plant and animal creation
and speciation and hundreds of millions of years of activity,
took place on a scale and with a vividness impossible to describe.
I learned that dragon-like creatures were thus inside all forms
of life, including man.' At this point in his account, Harner
writes in a footnote at the bottom of the page: 'in retrospect,
one could say that they were almost like DNA, although at that
time, in 1961, I knew nothing of DNA.' So, I would like to know
what was the source and nature of these nearly universal visions
that occurs in these shamanistic practices; the various creatures
including serpents and bird-headed dudes, and so forth? What
is the source of these hallucinations?
A: Be more specific.
Q: (C) In these chemically induced trances, why is there the
common experience of seeing these bird-headed or serpent-like
creatures?
A: While you have physicality, some part of you will maintain
the connection to its roots.
Q: (L) Are you saying that all these people who say that human
beings have reptilian genetics, are telling the truth? Do we
have reptilian genetics?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Do we also have bird genetics?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And that is our physical connection or basis?
A: Yes, as third density bioengineered beings, you lead the smorgasbord
parade of that which surrounds you in the physical realm.
Return
to Hoagland - Part I
|
