The Detuning of Session 17 and Ra's True Intentions Regarding 2011 - Part II

[Tenet Nosce]

as you know from the threads in which i had to switch my perspective regarding sudden/lengthy harvest, i have no qualms in changing my perspective with sufficient and valid information, in an instant.

And as you know, I have no such qualms either.

'ra is compromised because i dont like q/a 17.29' is not in my list that includes sufficient and valid information.

Yes, however that is not the reason I am taking Icaro's proposition under consideration. For I am not having a negative emotional reaction to 17.29, and would actually prefer that harvest is both swift, and immanent.

it is beyond waste that we are even discussing the personal bias of someone which strongly requires s/he deny a particular uncomfortable info.

I am one who is willing to sit with the uncomfortable information, in either case.

your assessments regarding harvest date and duration were sound and solid.

And they still may be. I am not wholesale abandoning my previous assessments. Despite the outcome of this conversation, we still have clear, documented evidence that somebody went to great lengths to encode the dates of 28 Oct 11 and 21 Dec 12 into monolithic architecture, calendar systems, and various mythologies. This evidence still stands.

no you cannot do that - you can see that in the earlier phases of this thread, when attempted, it came out in the form of instantly divining the purity of the questioner and the measure of negative influence.

A failed attempt does not imply impossibility.

there is no way that you can do these measurements, so that you could be able to measure the 'level of negative influence' with it.

I propose that one place to begin would be a deep analysis of the syntax and content of the queries. But you are right... there is no way to know what was "going on" for anybody in L/L at the exact moment of each query/reply.

i am at a loss as to how you are labeling this as channeling. this is not conscious or semi conscious channeling. this is basically one entity technically dying, leaving the body, and another walking in, without being subject to veil. it is no different than an alien basically landing in your backyard.

Well, besides the fact that L/L considers it channeling, that Carla wrote about the process in A Channeler's Handbook, and that most people consider the information to be channeled, I am not sure where you are coming up with the idea that the Ra material was not channeled. But I don't see continued argumentation on this point leading anywhere productive, so I will drop it.

that aside, you lost me about the structure of queries, pink elephant, and my annoyance with you pushing something. if you recite a few lines from those threads, i will elaborate.

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

WHAT?! Could this possibly mean that Ra is not infallible? Or perhaps that limitations in the Questioner's mind could distort the communication toward greater confusion? Wild!

lets get to the bottom of this - you have a beef with some information in the material, and you need Ra to be fallible in order for that information not to disturb you. this is the picture youre drawing with your concern going on and on in all threads, taking the form of 'ra's fallibleness'.

why not cut to the chase and just pop the real deal ?

That one. Please also follow the links within the above quote, as they shed more light on the topic.

the measurement of 'contamination' of the channel, is totally based on one's own desire.

Possibly, but not totally. Again, my desire is for the truth of the matter, not, "I don't want to believe harvest is immanent, therefore I will deny it."

there is no way you could measure the purity of the questioner, Ra, and the scribe.

True. This poses a major problem. But then again it is no different than considering Matthew's Messages, SaLuSa, the Nibiruans, Bashar, and a whole host of other bodies of information that, to some degree are coherent with LOO, and to some degree are not.

i am leaving out the channel, as you can see, for she was not there in that body.

No, I don't see this. If you can provide some additional info to back this up, I am open to seeing it.

in regard to 'meta information', 'effectiveness of words' and such - excuse me but there is not that much complication in this.

see, here ?

Yes, it happens all the time. And this forum is riddled with examples where somebody said one thing, another person took their words to be something different, and then conflict and confusion ensued.

Or I can think of countless failed attempts at reconciliation between Israel and Palestine in which both sides seem to be talking past each other. Or an American presidential debate where nobody seems to even understand the questions, or willfully ignores them. Or for that matter, pretty much any clip of Sarah Palin where she takes extreme liberty with the use of the English language to make things mean whatever she wants them to mean through the process of equivocation. (Sorry, Palin fans, I hope this doesn't derail the entire thread )

you are asking me a question. i am answering your question. i am still an entity that is attached to a body that is made of physical material, whereas i am still actually in time/space with mind/spirit. yet you are taking my replies literally, not talking about garbage in garbage out, or contamination, level of information and so on.

Yes, but that is not what is going on in the Ra material. You and I are two 3D entities having a direct conversation. Ra is a 6D entity, attempting to communicate with 3D entities about a level of existence which they themselves say, is beyond the ability to accurately describe with words.

it is not any different with the process you are talking about in this contact - there are 3 entities participating - a questioner, Ra, and a scribe. it is no different than 3 people talking in a room, and when you ask a question and get an answer from your friend, you taking it literally as answered.

Well we clearly do not see eye to eye here. People misunderstand each other all the time. Yes, Ra was using plain English language but that doesn't mean that something got lost in translation, or that the channel only "heard" what she was able to "hear" based upon her own internal biases and/or degree of negative attack that she was experiencing at the moment the reply was given.

i see what you are trying to get at, and yet you seem to be continuing in the wrong footing from the start. as i said - conscious, semi conscious channeling, trance and this kind of thing cannot be compared.

Are there any other examples of "this kind of thing" to use? Otherwise we are left with the closest known phenomenon. For that matter, how would you characterize "this kind of thing"? What would be the correct footing from which to begin, according to your understanding?

if you and i were to meet in person, you would ask my name, and you would take my name to be what i replied you.

More importantly, if I were to open the gateway to intelligent infinity, and be communicating directly with the universe, it would behoove me to already understand that asking questions like "What should I do?" or "What is going to happen next?" is going to lead me astray. Communication through the gateway is not the same as you and I having a chat over coffee.

It seems to me that on the one hand you are characterizing the Ra contact as "special" and a class unto its own, while other hand attempting to reduce the whole of the communication to a casual chat between two friends on a Sunday afternoon. I am confused by this.

you wouldnt suspect negative interference, you wouldnt reinterpret what i said, you wouldnt suspect the structure of your query.

Not immediately. However if our conversation continued to descend into chaos and conflict, and it seemed that no matter how I tried to rephrase my position, you continued to misinterpret what I was saying, then YES I would begin to suspect negative interference and/or a hidden agenda on your part.

Have you ever attempted to resolve a conflict with a woman who was hell-bent on interpreting whatever you say in the worst possible light? It is like that.

'is now' is a phrase that is used as 'imminent' in english literature and language.

if harvest was really 'then', the correct wordage and termage would take the form of 'harvest is happening as of now'.

So what you are saying is that Ra used the word "now" when they actually meant "in the not-so-near future, according to 3D measurements of time"? If so, they should have corrected this statement, or chosen a different word. "Now" means "now". For you to say that "now" means, in this case, something different, invalidates your previous arguments on normal conversations using plain language.

again, why we are even revisiting this ? just because someone had opened 3 threads in quick succession in order to confirm a strong bias s/he needed defended, and eventually ending up claiming total invalidation of Ra (rather unknowingly though, he just wanted to invalidate one or two q/as) ?

Personally, I am revisiting this because when I read Icaro's post, some of the views put forth coincided with things that I have been tossing around in the back of my own mind. So either, there is something of value here to investigate, or Icaro and I are both being manipulated by 5D/neg to derail the entire mission of L/L Research. In which case, it is still worth investigating.

address what ?

harvest != movement into 4d vibrations. how many times we have discussed this ? what is the problem at that point even ?

I am referring to the persistent belief that this 3D earth will become 4D earth, through the works of mankind upon the planet. As we have previously touched upon, harvest and the transition of the planet from 3D to full-activation 4D are not the same thing.

Harvest is the process by which 3D entities are transferred to 4D. Whether or not this is "gradual" or "sudden" is a distinct issue from the situation where we have a post-harvest 3D earth, with human beings still incarnating and reproducing upon it.

yes. however this doesnt allow entities to call bullshit on what they do not like selectively, going through extreme versions of that kind of nonsense themselves.

I am not saying that it does, and agree that it is absurd to call bullshit on something simply because the implications of it make us uncomfortable.

if you trust reliability of information, you trust it. if you dont, you dont. you cannot selectively trust information in places you dont like, and revert back later.

My lens of interpretation puts the Ra material in the category of "highly trusted" but not "infallible". My reasoning has been put forth here and in other threads.

notice - i didnt say trance channeling. for, this is not trance channeling. the method used in this contact was elaborated in the material. you will see that it is a very peculiar practice. and actually this was the reason for a lot of the troubles and dangers surrounding this contact.

Perhaps I should go back and review the methodology. In any case, I don't think I will be convinced that the steps the group took to preserve the integrity of the material was 100% effective. Maybe 99%, the 1% being a calculated manipulation, allowed to pass for some higher purpose which was left for us to discern.

if it was a common practice, it would be not only much easier for Ra to find a group, but also information similar to Ra material would be transmitted by other parties - Ra is not the only 6d entity that is involved with this sphere at this moment you know. one can say that the involvement of the south american group is much heavier than Ra.

As I do know. And it would appear that the various 6D entities share some common intent, but disagree about the effectiveness and appropriateness of different methodologies used to interact with the populace. So, there really is no basis for us believing that Ra's methodology is the "best", and in fact, Ra themselves tell us that this whole mess was a result of a failed method they employed in hopes of being of service to earth humans.

At the end of the day, and luckily for us, we are now positioned exceedingly close to the time window of 28 Oct 11 to 21 Dec 12 for "something" to happen, whatever that "something" may be. If that "something" is harvest, then we should expect a considerable chunk of the population to immanently die or go missing. If no such thing occurs, then either we have utterly failed to understand what "harvest" even is, or Ra utterly failed to understand our inability to perceive it.