| Author |
Message |
   
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 08:58 am: | 
|
In one of the compartments of this forum, I now don't know which, there was a conversation between Billy and Ptaah regarding a hidden planet called KATHEIN. The introduction to this conversation stated that it was held on 3 Feb. 1992. That would make it be from Contact #241. However, in reading over my German/English copy of Contact #241, this conversation is not in it. Did it occur earlier in the contact than where the Contact 241 pamphlet starts?
In any event, I'm interested in being able to locate within this forum where I found the discussion about KATHEIN, if any others should be able to come across it.
Regards,
Jim Deardorff |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:23 am: |
|
I managed to find a partial answer to my above questions. The discussion about the planet KATHEIN occurs under the "Newsletter" section, if you can find the link to that. There it's under Figu-Bulletin No. 9; scroll about 55% of the way down until you come to the Response to Urs Krasemann.
I wanted to discuss a few things that Ptaah said about this planet KATHEIN.
1. "it orbits the sun at such a high speed that it always remains hidden behind it."
According to the laws of nature, which are among the laws of Creation, a planetary body in orbit around the sun must have a speed or angular velocity that allows its orbital centrifugal force to be in balance with the gravitational force between it and the sun. Thus, if it were on exactly the other side of the sun from the earth, such that we would never see it because it's behind the sun, it would be orbiting the sun with a period of one year, just as the earth does. But we don't consider the earth to be orbiting at a high speed, "much faster than it is supposed to." Thus KATHEIN also could not be orbiting much faster than it is supposed to.
Furthermore, most every school child learns that the earth's orbit is not an exact circle. So KATHEIN would be visible at times, like during a solar eclipse, a bit off to the side from the sun, unless it is just a tiny asteroid.
Why would Ptaah speak such "silly science" to Billy?
2. There is an [insert] that reads "[The planet was far beyond customary planetary orbits. Billy]." However, only if KATHEIN were no farther away than the earth, could it be "in orbit" and be approximately opposite the sun so as to be mostly hidden behind the sun from us.
And Billy was correct, that the farther a planet's orbit is from the sun, the slower its orbital speed.
3. Although KATHEIN is said to be orbiting the sun, Ptaah also said that it is slowly increasing its orbital distance away from the sun, such as to become so far away as to get lost from the sun's gravitational influence and come under the influence of a "dark hole's wandering spiral arm."
However, it turns out that this wasn't a slow increase at all, since it already happened according to Ptaah's predictions in June of 1992.
Any amateur astronomer knows that it takes millions of years for a planetary orbit to change a little bit, not just a few months to change dramatically. Unless it suffers a close astronomical encounter. Although Ptaah says this occurred, after the occurrence Ptaah said that KATHEIN was back in about its normal orbit again, which would put it back in an earth-like orbit opposite the earth, so as to be hidden.
Again, why would Ptaah speak such "silly science" to Billy?
Presumably, the "dark hole" Ptaah mentioned is a translation for "black hole." If it has a spiral arm, this would be made up of visible stars. The visible stars nearby form a part of a spiral arm of our galaxy (which contains a massive black hole at its center). Why would Ptaah speak of a black hole with a spiral arm being so close to the sun as to attract KATHEIN away from the sun, but not attract the sun's other planets away, including the earth?
Further, a spiral arm consists of stars. Such stars could not have come so close to our solar system as to wrench "sand and dust" from Venus
while not affecting the rest of the planets. (A star -- many stars -- are much more massive than a Destroyer comet.)
Does anyone else, who knows that Meier's experiences were real, wonder why Ptaah would speak such silly science?
Could it be due to anything else than Ptaah's needing to make sure that any astronomers who read about it would simply chuckle and say something like, "How dumb Meier is to be inventing such silly science!" This would be the astronomers' assumption.
In this manner, Ptaah (and Semjase et al.) have ensured that by giving Billy so much opportunity to photograph their beamships in the daytime, and much other evidence, it would not cause the UFO coverup to come unraveled. Instead, it helps keep Billy in a debunked state, such that the reality of it all is not forced upon anybody, scientists or others. Of course, ETs in general seem to be following the same precautionay guidelines with respect to ordinary UFO sightings and abductions.
Shouldn't we be aware of this? Is Billy aware of it?
Regards,
Jim |
Michael Horn
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 04:45 pm: |
|
Thanks Jim,
Good points and questions. I look forward to clarification.
Michael |
Jean Pierre Lagasse
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 06:06 pm: |
|
Hi Jim,
Food for thought... however...(!)
I (just my own thoughts for myself, eh?) would not be so quick to "dismiss" Ptaah's accounts of what is in "our" universe...
For example, a "high speed" planetary body could orbit the far side of our sun, outside of our solar system, if it's effective mass balanced the "centrifugal force". This is only one possible explanation...
There are others, both technically & "in interpretation".
Is it also possible that this planet is inhabited by "advanced" beings? (there is mention of this in "other" writings)
Is it also possible that the usual "planetary body orbitational effects" don't necessarily apply? (due to technological influences...)
A clue: Why would it's orbit be "re-established"...?
I suspect that this type of info (as you said) would be "perfect" to pass on... as it is completely unverifiable to us presently (& sounds outrageous) and yet in the future (when we publicly travel space) would mean a great deal... looking back on this contact.
JPLagasse |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 09:56 pm: |
|
Hi Jean Pierre,
Thanks for trying to tackle this seeming problem.
You wrote:
"For example, a 'high speed' planetary body could orbit the far side of our sun, outside of our solar system, if it's effective mass balanced the centrifugal force. This is only one possible explanation... "
You'll need to think up another one, I'm afraid. The speed of a planetary body in orbit about a large star or sun does not depend upon the planet's mass at all. The planet's centrifugal force is proportional to its inertial mass, and the attractive gravitional is proportional to its gravitational mass. But inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass. So its speed of rotation doesn't depend at all on its mass. I wonder if Billy got fooled by this?
If you shied away from high school physics, you can still confirm this by realizing that the TV satellites, which appear stationary over the equator, all have to have the same altitude and speed to stay in place. Yet, they can have totally different masses, from the first dinky one they sent up to the latest big, fancy one.
This law of nature holds, in all practical situations, whether the planet is inhabited or not.
If, as you suggest, it possessed highly technologically advanced inhabitants who were capable of propelling the whole planet, and accelerating it to high speeds, there would be no reason for them to keep steering it around the sun, would there? They'd very quickly be so far away that they'd be invisible from Earth anyway, if they already were more under the influence of other stars in our spiral arm of the galaxy than of the sun. But even if that were done, one wouldn't use the word "orbit" to describe it unless you wanted to mislead your listener. A body orbiting around the sun is just coasting along, with its centrifugal force balancing the gravitational force of attraction, and not being propelled.
But, OK, if they can cause the inertial mass of the whole planet to be vastly different from its gravitational mass, then I concede.
Regards,
Jim |
JAY
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hello Jim and Jean,
Understanding what I read from Bulletin No.9, as quoted by PTAAH, it seems THE DESTROYER has something to do with KATHEIN's destiny as a fast moving planet around the sun, this is what I understood from the bulletin:
PTAAH:
"It was touched by and then later wrenched into the Destroyer Planet's gravitational field when the Destroyer was making its tenth-to-last passage through the SOL system. KATHEIN was able to free itself from the Destroyer's field of force to the point where it was able to establish and maintain nearly its normal orbit around the sun again, albeit, at an incredibly increased velocity, while the Destroyer continued on its predestined trajectory and entered the SOL system, where it generated destruction and change in many regions"
I'm not much a science person when it comes to planets and solar system information but would not this statement make PTAAH's information not "silly Science"?, from my understanding they have a good track record of keeping touch with our own sorroundings as our own Silly Scientist do not.  I think an outside force such that of THE DESTROYER Comet may have influences in which could throw the natural balance of a star, planet or solar system for a million years or a few years.
At times when I hear this kind of information, it sort of reminds me of the ENUMA ELISH/NIBIRU Sitchin information,(Nibiru being guided by The ANUNNAQI technology of ancient times)
hope what I said is not confusing
BE WELL Jim & Jean |
Glenn Mckenzie
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 03:29 pm: |
|
Hi Jim and Jean,
This is how I interpret what Ptaah said about the planet Kathein. They (the Plejarans) noticed this planets unusual high speed of orbit 76 years ago. I take it, they investigated the matter after that discovery, and found this in the HISTORY RECORDS of THE PLANET:
'According to our records the planet hidden behind the sun is called KATHEIN. It was touched by and then later wrenched into the Destroyer Planet's gravitational field when the Destroyer was making its tenth-to-last passage through the SOL system. Kathein was able to free itself from the destroyer's field of force to the point where it was able to establish and maintain "NEARLY IT'S NORMAL ORBIT" around the sun again, albeit, at an incredibly increased velocity,'
I hi-lited some important words in that quote, because I feel "NEARLY IT'S NORMAL ORBIT" explains how the arm of the black hole would gradually overtake it from the suns grip. If it was in it's EXACT ORBIT, this may not have happened! And this line:
'It is slowly increasing its distance from the SOL system, however, and is migrating into the gravity of a dark hole's wandering spiral arm, which will ultimately draw the planet into its own force sometime this year.'
The word "slowly", I think was referring to the whole process (((since the interaction with the Destroyer))) and NOT for the period of the last 76 years OR the period between Feb. - June of 1992!!
Furthermore, our earths speed of orbit around the sun isn't considered to be fast, because it's normal in relation to our distance. Ptaah's stating, Kathein's speed of orbit is fast, considering it's distance! And he saying this speed was caused by the altercation with the Destroyer. And it's obvious it would have to be going faster, to be at a greater distance from the sun and still be opposite the earth! Kathein getting back 'NEAR it's original orbit', I never took this as meaning 'GETTING BACK TO THE PROPER SPEED OF IT'S ORBIT' but rather 'GETTING BACK TO THE DISTANCE OF IT'S ORBIT'!!!
Take care,
Glenn. |
Glenn McKenzie
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 11:45 pm: |
|
PS...... I read into it: Ptaah knows, the events for the (CAUSE of the orbit speed). Not, the physics of the planet remaining, at that speed, in orbit!
Take care,
Glenn. |
Norm
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 11:48 am: |
|
Since Saddam Hussein is in the news repeatedly recently and due to the fact that the USA may attack him I felt I should post this.
From Contact 241 on February 3rd 1993.
Ptaah-Saddam Hussein, will suddenly declare himself willing to fully heed the United Nations sanctions. These sanctions require him to destroy all weapons of chemical and other mass destruction. Due to the fact that he will be threatened with a new war, he will agree to U.N. demands for appearances sake, while secretly continuing to vigorously produce his destructive weapons and laughing at the stupidity of those who believe him. He will be able to continue committing his crimes, such as the torture of numerous people, as well as their abduction and murder, which he frequently carries out through mass executions. It is a fact that is still not fully recognized by those in authority throughout the world, and against which nothing is being done. |
Norm
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Contact 241 on February 3rd 1993.
Ptaah-The fact is ridiculed in the same way that you are ridiculed throughout the world, just as Nostradamus had already prophesied about you when stating that you would be derided at the time when the Great Earthquake was looming in California and The Wall in the German Democratic Republic was coming down. |
Lars
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 09:38 pm: |
|
Hi Norm,
Again Wow!!! Iam so impressed, remarkable, Ptaah's predictions are
100% certain, because he is an "Observer of the time-track" and lives in tune with the Spirit!
how blessed is he...
I'll call him the "Great Ptaah" for he truly is
a great man in very high places!
I know for certain Ptaah like a father cares about
us earthlings and what hassles we go through.
I can just feel his great love for us and his noble respect. The man is simply a gaurdian and his words are gold.
Lars |
Marc Juliano
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Hi Norm,
Just a correction: Contact 241 took place on February 3, 1992. I remember this since I paid for the initial English print run of this contact in 1993. It sure felt good to get this booklet out there.
Regards,
Marc |
Norm
| | Posted on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 06:41 am: |
|
Claes, Since we know what Ptaah said is true, they maybe Saddam needs be removed from power? This is a double edged sword! |
Michael
| | Posted on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 08:20 am: |
|
Hi,
As far as I can tell the information in the 241st Contact was dealing with events that actually occurred on March 30, 1992 when UN inspectors said that they were satisfied over Iraq's elimination of weapons.
I had an exchange with Christian about this at the end of September:
Hi Christian,
There seems to be some confusion regarding Iraq as someone said that Billy told Heidi that the Plejarans approved of the idea of Saddam Hussein being removed during the Gulf War. If they do not approve of the proposed American plan to do it now is it because there is no international coalition like there was during the Gulf War? Is it because it's so apparent that America simply wants to get in and get the oil? Any other reasons? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Salome,
Michael
Hi Michael,
What seems as a cofusion is actually two things:
1) To "remove" Saddam Hussein means that the International Forces (during the Gulf War) should have tried to capture the dictator and put him in jail so he could be judged and sentenced to a life-long punishment.
"To remove" does not mean "to kill" or "to shoot down", and if Saddam would have surrendered and would have been captured there also would have been no right (and reason) at all to kill him because this would have been blatant murder.
Anyone who surrenders may not and never be killed. The only acceptable reason to kill a person is from direct, actual and obvious self-defense.
2) Today we have an entirely different situation, because there is no internationally founded decision to attack Iraq. Only a "couple" of war-mongers are of the opinion that they have the right to trample upon international law etc. and to fulfil their more or less hidden, egoistical aims.
Salome,
Christian |
Cpl
Member
Post Number: 14
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 08:19 pm: |
|
Hi Norm,
Re your post:
"Contact 241 on February 3rd 1993.
Ptaah-The fact is ridiculed in the same way that you are ridiculed throughout the world, just as Nostradamus had already prophesied about you when stating that you would be derided at the time when the Great Earthquake was looming in California and The Wall in the German Democratic Republic was coming down."
Can anyone tell us what Century and Quatrain number this prophetie of Nostradamus is?
Thanks,
cpl |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 582
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 11:04 am: |
|
In Contact 238 (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_238), it is said that the age of the Milky way is exactly 810 billion years, whereas in contact 241 (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Bulletin_011#QUESTIONS_FROM_OUR_READERS) as in Bulletin 11, it is announced to be 1 trillion 911 billion years old whereas our sun to be 1 trillion 730 billion years old.
Which one is true?
"There are many more wrong answers than right ones, and they are easier to find." - Michael Friedlander
|
Rarena
Member
Post Number: 680
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2011 - 07:55 am: |
|
Dear Smukhuti,
Good question... (even though this closed forum folder starts with Contact 241... eh eh) that's the way to keep up the skeptical learning process!
You may have found a typo or misread the contacts.
Not having recently read the two contacts you referenced my answer may be a bit out of context: Since the Milky Way Galaxy started as a swirling disk of gasous matter it would be difficult to determine the exact moment it became a more "solid ," congealed galaxy. The two different reference times may have something to do with that fact, that has been confusing to me in the past.
As to which one is correct... most of the information that is provable concerning the Meier material has been truthful... although, after rereading the two sources and have not resolved the descrepancy you may want to ask someone involved in FIGU translations or if still not resolved, Billy... in the next round of questions... |
Theoldthomas
Member
Post Number: 8
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 06:42 am: |
|
Hello everyone. I am looking for the complete copy of contact 241 in German and/or English. If you have a copy of it, I would be happy to share a contact report with you in exchange. This is for personal use only and not for publishing anywhere, on the internet or otherwise. If you are interested, please let me know at
LTH9807@gmail.com
AGAIN this is NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION so please do not contact me if you intend to publish the information anywhere.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Thomas |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
