Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List FIGU-Website FIGU-Website
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View FIGU-Shop FIGU-Shop

Archive through June 30, 2010

Discussionboard of FIGU » The Mission » The Pleiadians/Plejarens and the Federation » Contact Notes » Archive through June 30, 2010 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1046
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 10:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> Hi John, actually unlike the speed of sound, light speed decreases as the > medium density increases so it would have the reverse affect if the core > were denser...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Johnboy
Member

Post Number: 49
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 05:26 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thomas, Jrod,

Thank you both for your comments. You are both right. Somehow, I reversed the density of the creation belts in my head.... Fun stuff to ponder though... I will continue researching.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 208
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 06:28 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Contact Report 222, Wednesday, February 3, 1988

Billy: on my Great Journey with Semjase and Ptaah in his Great Spacer, we also flew to the so-called Andromeda Nebula, as this enormous structure is erroneously called by the earthly astronomers because they just assume that it would concern a galactic nebula. But as I could see with my own eyes, this structure is not a nebula but an enormous galaxy, in which many solar systems exist with their own planets, a large number of which also carries diverse and even human life. My question: why do the earthly astronomers constantly say that Andromeda is a nebula? Do they actually not know that it is a galaxy with suns and planets and all the trimmings, which exactly constitutes a real galaxy?

Quetzal: This fact is still unknown to them; therefore, they also speak of an Andromeda Nebula. This is due, not in the least, to the fact that their astronomical instruments are not yet sufficient to be able to see the reality of the Andromeda Galaxy. Their instruments are still too insufficient to be able to recognize more than just a nebula at a distance of about two million light years away, which is the distance from the Earth to the Andromeda Galaxy. In the newer time, however, this will change, and to be sure, in the coming nineties or at the beginning of the new millennium at the latest, when the Hubble Space Telescope fulfills its function.

Dec. 30, 1924: We Are Not Alone
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/12/dayintech_1230

"Astronomer Edwin Hubble announces that the spiral nebula Andromeda is actually a galaxy and that Milky Way is just one of many galaxies in the universe."

Edwin hubble announced it in 1924, then why would Quetzal say that our scientists were still unaware of this fact back in 1988...?

}
In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act.- George Orwell
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sanjin
Member

Post Number: 146
Registered: 06-2009
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 08:33 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mahigitam,

That article from Wired has some false information. Edwin Hubble did not announce that Andromeda is a galaxy. Edwin Hubble had a publication in 1929 which is titled "A spiral nebula as a stellar system" as can be seen here: click for link

Hubble only announced that it was outside of our galaxy and that it has a stellar nature, but it was still assumed to be a nebula, therefore a nebula outside of the Milky Way.

Here is an article from 1970 that calls it Andromeda Nebula : link

But I did find an article from 1971 which called it a galaxy. From my understanding, I think that there were still many astronomers who referred to it as a nebula and that is what Billy was arguing. The translation is also slightly off. Billy's question is more why they "continually claim" or " keep saying that" Andromeda is a nebula.


Here is an article from 1996, which still called it "Andromeda Nebula": link
Love makes the world go round.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1056
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 10:28 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> Exactly the sort of things I am talking about. I believe BEAM but more and > more these things are showing up which make me wonder. However the Plejaren > are human and make mistakes. I just cannot get past the thing with Arahat > Athersata...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 209
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 12:12 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Sanjin,
i found these links interesting,take a look..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

"When William Herschel constructed his catalog of deep sky objects, he used the name spiral nebula for certain objects such as M31. These would later be recognized as immense conglomerations of stars, when the true distance to these objects began to be appreciated, and they would be termed island universes. However, the word Universe was understood to mean the entirety of existence, so this expression fell into disuse and the objects instead became known as galaxies."

http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/hubble_bio.php

"From this Hubble deduced that the Andromeda Nebula was not a nearby star cluster but rather an entire other galaxy, now called the Andromeda galaxy. "

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960406.html

" In the 1920s, using photographic plates made with the Mt. Wilson Observatory's 100 inch telescope, Edwin Hubble determined the distance to the Andromeda Nebula - decisively demonstrating the existence of other galaxies far beyond the Milky Way."


http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/cosmicengine/hubble.html

"Taken together the evidence eventually convinced astronomers that "spiral "nebulae" such as Andromeda were in fact separate "island universes" of billions of stars like our own Milky Way but more distant. We now call these galaxies instead of island universes."


http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/island.htm

"Hubble's discovery of Cepheid variable stars in spiral nebulae, and the distance determination confirming that spiral nebulae are independent galaxies, were officially announced on New Year's Day, 1925, at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society."
In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act.- George Orwell
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joe
Member

Post Number: 101
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 03:20 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone know if the Plejaren ever mentioned the Gulf oil spill in the contact reports?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 286
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 06:40 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I haven't seen it but look for the words "industrial accidents" and "industrial factors" here:

http://theyfly.com/A_Prediction.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Marbar
Member

Post Number: 129
Registered: 12-2009
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 05:02 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In Contact Report 223, Billy and Quetzal talk about the sounds of the Earth. Could the Taos Hum, a low-pitched noise that is only heard by a small amount of people apply to this?

Here is information about the hum: http://amasci.com/hum/hum1.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1072
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 09:35 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> Seems reasonable to think so Marbar.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Rarena
Member

Post Number: 585
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 11:24 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You know the Andromeda region is a galaxy, I know it... yet there were those in 1988 before the Hubble Space Telescope became fully operational in 1990...whom still called it a nebula and that comment previously discussed was directed to those in 1988 whom still called it a nebula. I concur it is hard to imagine a human being who does not lie... just the same... coming from an Earth man's limited point of view.

BTW this photo was taken with that machine which very presisely indicates this as a galaxy rather than a nebula.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 216
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 06:00 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Contact Report 224, Thurday, July 7th, 1988

Billy: ..to my knowledge, the Earth rushes at a speed of 28.8 kilometers per second around the Sun...

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970401c.html

"Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour."

Something went wrong here...wrong translation or what ?
In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act.- George Orwell
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1082
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 06:42 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> It seems he got the speed of Earth at the equator confused with orbital > speed. BEAM and the P's do make mistakes so this is likely what happened > snce the equator speed at Earth's surface is about what BEAM quoted.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Borthwey
Member

Post Number: 193
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 11:42 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> 67,000 miles an hour is 29.77 kilometers per second, which corresponds > approximately to what Billy said. The equator speed at Earth's surface on > the other hand, is about 67 times slower (465 meters per second or 1046 > miles an hour).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1085
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 10:28 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> Then I stand corrected and am out of ideas. Maybe someone else will ask > BEAM when the Q and A section opens up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sanjin
Member

Post Number: 147
Registered: 06-2009
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 12:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No need to ask since the number is (approximately) correct. According to my calculation, 67,000 miles per hour converts to 29.95 kilometers per second.

The translation is also good.
Love makes the world go round.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 217
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 08:08 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you guys,

I should have checked it twice before posting...
In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act.- George Orwell
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

J_rod7
Member

Post Number: 1305
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 05:31 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

*****

Hello Sanjin,

You are correct. This has nothing to do with the rotational value of the Earth, which at the Equator is ~1,000 Miles-per-hour. This is in relation to the value of the speed of revolution around the Sun.

As we do also know, this orbit takes us closer to the Sun during Northern Winter, and further from the Sun during Northern Summer. Therefore, QED, The Earth is in an eccentric orbit. From the laws of motion, the closer-in part of the orbit will be faster than the slower velocity in the outer part of the orbit. Therefore there is no fixed value of velocity, but only an integral average.

The number given by Billy is expressed in Kilometers-per-second = 28.8 Km/s. The two-step conversion==

28.8-Km = 17.8954-miles. Multiply 60-s/min times 60-min/hour =[then]= 3600-sec/hour times 17.8954 Miles = 64,423.44-miles/hour (expanding from the value given by Billy). We may consider this to be an integrated average. Some sections in the revolution will be faster than this and some will be slower.

It should be more obvious that it is the Earth Scientist which has a basis in incorrect facts of the relationship of the Earth in it's revolution orbit. (Perhaps they still depend on the incorrect value of Pi in their calculations).

So Thomas, you say: ["BEAM and the P's do make mistakes so this is likely what happened"] --

-- Well to repeat right back atcha what you have already dumped on me in kind more than once = If you do NOT have the requisite understanding that Billy will be more correct than the Earth Sciences, Why do you 'stick around?' Or do you suppose there could actually be a 'common-ground' based in Logic to do away with your personal attacks? That if ALL facts are clearly understood, an actual Debate could expand knowledge, rather than limit it? JA? Speaking to True Knowledge rather than opinion will carry you forward into greater Wisdom, young man.

Wisdom in Peace // Peace in Wisdom

Salome

*****
~~ TRUTH finds WISDOM finds LOVE finds PEACE -- Find What You Seek ~ Rod
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1090
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 10:21 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> I don't even understand what you are trying to tell me J rod. English is > my first language but your post is unclear regarding the part you directed > at me. Sorry but I can't get my head around it. Would you mind rephrasing > in simple terms for the simple minds like me? :D
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

J_rod7
Member

Post Number: 1306
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 10:42 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thomas, the meaning: unless you have something positive to contribute to the discussion, then simply say nothing.

Your responses to me sound like a mosquito buzzing at my ear.


~~ TRUTH finds WISDOM finds LOVE finds PEACE -- Find What You Seek ~ Rod
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Thomas
Member

Post Number: 1094
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 11:56 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

> You are free to ignore my posts jrod but I will not be silent just because > you don't approve. Sorry but that is not how things work here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joe
Member

Post Number: 108
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 12:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Excerpt from Contact Report 225

Billy:
I will use your words when I fulfill the task intended for me. But now, I would like to talk about something else: already several times, we’ve had discussions about the cloning of animals and humans. For me, it is completely clear as to what a clone basically is, just an internal and external organic reproduction of a person, of whom a cell is used for the cloning. It is also clear to me that the consciousness of the male cell donor or female cell donor will not enter into a clone but that the clone is animated by another spirit form and, thus, also by another overall consciousness block and, accordingly, also by another consciousness or by another personality. Also, it is a matter of impossibility that by a male cell donor or female cell donor, his or her consciousness can be transferred into a clone. And since that time now comes soon, as you’ve already explained several times during earlier conversations, when researches become acute and open to cloning worldwide, then a few more explanatory words from your side will certainly be advantageous. At the same time, if you could even address, for example, the greatest danger of cloning, I mean in terms of what can impair the lives of clones, then this would, perhaps, be of use.

Quetzal:
60. In repetition of your remarks, I can confirm that a clone is only an internal and external organic reproduction of a body, i.e. of an animal, etc. or a person.
61. Nevertheless, it doesn’t concern the same animal instinct-nature, as well as not the same human personality and, thus, not the same physical body, from which a cell is taken and, with it, a clone is created.
62. In every case, it concerns a completely different body that is entirely just a reproduction of the body, from which the cell is taken.
63. Also, the spirit form animating the clone, which is connected with its own overall consciousness block and with its own personality, can never be the same as that of the person donating the cell.
64. In truth, a spirit form that is independent from the person donating the cell, with its associated overall consciousness block and personality created by it, moves into the clone and animates this.
65. And since the spirit form is of a creative nature, it cannot be manipulated by human beings; consequently, it also cannot be transferred from a person donating a cell to a clone.
66. This is also not possible for the overall consciousness block, as well as not for the personality created by this, which is integrated into it.
67. Moreover, the spirit form and the overall consciousness block with its created personality are an inseparable unit, from which it likewise follows that a transferring of this to a clone cannot be carried out by a person donating a cell or by any other person.
68. This is precisely because the spirit form can in no way be manipulated by human beings.

End of excerpt.

I dunno but I always thought that clones were spirit-less beings. However this doesn't seem to be the case because both Billy and Quetzal mention that a clone does indeed have a spirit.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 1820
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 03:03 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Joe....

Yes, you read, right, as Quetzal described.

Clones, being - Spirit-less beings - are just mentioned picture scenarios. So,
I understand what you mean, yes.

But, it is Logical that a 'separate' Spirit has to animate the human being,
no?

Thus, indeed, a Spirit will just reside in that clone.

If there is a 'vacant' Embryo (human body to be), of course through Natural
Creational procedure...the/a Spirit will gravitate to that concerning vacancy.

When it gets down to the point: it just concerns a HUMAN being, who is
indeed in need of a Spirit, in order to exist.

Remember what Jmmanuel mentioned: The Creational Duality. The Spirit and the
Human Body, have to exist together; the one can not live without the other.

Thus: a very Logical scenario, here....no?

(The) Creation, just implements her work...as she usually does.....:
Consequences - Cause and Effect.


Edward.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page