Why do Don and Ra talk about a lenticular galaxy when our galaxy is spiral?

[Tenet Nosce]

1) Please differentiate between 'elliptical' and 'lenticular', then see that depending on the way you are looking at the galaxy in a 3d plane, a 'spiral' galaxy can be seen as 'lenticular' sideways (lenticular meaning bulging thing/mass at the center like shape of a lentil.).

Then do not equate 'lenticular' with 'elliptical'. 'Lenticular' represents a 3d plane, 'elliptical' could represent a 2d trajectory as well, as an example.

Elliptical? I thought we were talking about spiral! LOL. Look all I am trying to say here is that maybe it was a slip. I don't see why it is such a big deal. When we have to start going into all manner of convoluted explanations to preserve the supposed infallibility of the contact, it starts to become a little absurd. Spiral, lenticular, elliptical... I don't think there is any hidden mystery for us to discern. Ra only used the word "lenticular" one time. Don used it seven times.

All this demonstrates, in my opinion, is that distortions in the query lead to distortions in the reply. If Ra stopped Don to correct every little distortion in his mind, there wouldn't be anything useful left for us to read.

2) If you want to compare other channeling narratives with the Ra material, I encourage you to do some more research. Metaphysically speaking, the depth of not only the way Ra material was conducted but the incredibly intricate 'circular' agreements from beginning to end and the 'explosive' mind openings occurring at random times made this experience worth an incarnation by itself for me.

Well seeing as how I have studied the Seth material, the Urantia Book, the Keys of Enoch, the Cassiopaeans, Sheldan Nidle, Matthew's Messages, Barbara Marciniak, SaLuSa, Master Hilarion, and also for several months attended in person channeling sessions with Dr. Peebles through Ann Albers, I am not sure what "more research" you would suggest.

Out of all the channeled works and messages I have encountered, the Ra material is by far one of the best. I would place Ra, the Cassiopeans, and Seth in a class unto themselves. However to operate from the assumption that the Ra contact was infallible, or that every single word in it is literally true, would be taking it too far. Even L/L Research agrees that the material is colored by the mind of the channel, so it kind of boggles my mind when somebody else comes in and tries to argue that every last minutia must be correct.

I have heard several people object when I say that it is helpful to increase one’s ability to articulate concepts and find just the right word by conscious thought. Such people have the notion that the person channeling asymptotically approaches a pure contact, with no contribution by the channel. My opinion is that about one quarter of most good channeling is contributed by the channel, both the channel’s words and experiences. This may be an incorrect view; however, the great bulk of channeled information is produced by those in a light trance, or at least those not asleep, and it seems to me that as it is impossible to eliminate the personal factor from channeling, it surely would be considered desirable by both the instrument and the one who offers the channeled material to the instrument for the instrument to have a disciplined and predictable share, obviously in the minority, but not insignificant, in the material. If you are a new channel and one of your objections to channeling is that you fear that you are channeling yourself, attempt to lessen the influence your personal thinking may have on the channeling, but-and again, this is only my opinion-do not try to eliminate it, for you are a valuable part of the channeling process.