Bring4th

Don says in his unfinished book Accelerating Personal Evolution the following:

Quote:A planet has seven of these vibrational changes to experience in its
evolutionary process. Earth entered its third-density cycle a little
more than 75,000 years ago, when the core frequency of some atoms
achieved the yellow range of the spectrum as a result of galactic
rotation and the consequent electromagnetic realignment of the
Earth’s field.
Because of this electromagnetic change in atomic structure,
Neanderthal Man made a rapid transition to homo sapiens in a little
over 1,300 years.

This information taken of course from his contact with Ra.

Further on the oldest homo sapien skull was found to be dated back roughly 100,000 (130,000) years ago.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

If you read the second article it says a jump in modernism, technology, etc.. occurred roughly 40-50 thousand years ago.

My question is the dates don't line up very well. And some sources say different dates.

How accurate is genetic dating?

Ideas?

There are "early modern" human skulls from Africa and the middle east that date back to 200,000 years. Modern genomic inquiries indicated that Neanderthal wasn't our ancestor at all, that it was a dead-end branch.

(09-11-2010, 07:00 PM)Eddie Wrote: [ -> ]There are "early modern" human skulls from Africa and the middle east that date back to 200,000 years. Modern genomic inquiries indicated that Neanderthal wasn't our ancestor at all, that it was a dead-end branch.

So does this mean 3rd density started back 200,000 thousand years ago or... does it mean that there was the homo sapien but it was not a 3rd density entity because it was not activated in yellow ray.

I think it just means that before 75K years ago, humans were just high-level 2D animals/apes.

There are scores of inaccuracies on both sides.

The distortion is as follows:
1. Scientists are theorizing based upon the best evidence they have "discovered." The techniques are subject to error, the measurements are at some point based upon assumptions. Scientific method begins upon the distortion that an experiment can be objective.

2. Ra has limited knowledge and can only explain things of 6D from a limited angle of perspective. Ra can not explain the true nature of the higher densities, which means that Ra does not fully understand its purpose. The channel has a limited ability to understand the information presented by Ra.

A side note, research also points to neanderthal being far from the "cave man" commonly presented.

Those are incredibly inaccurate numbers. 100,000 years has only one significant figure while 75,000 has two significant figures. We need the ability to accurately date before we can assume those skulls are exactly "a hundred thousand years old"

Now my history textbook says that homo sapiens (like modern today humans) were dated back 160,000 years. Also says there was a huge jump in technology 40-50 thousand years ago.



The textbook ALSO SAYS, that the Great Pyramid was built with sleds, ropes, and oil... And that they were built as burial for egocentric kings (pharaohs).

How am I supposed to pass my college history class if the history is just fallacy! I'm so confused - is this a catalyst? Am I supposed to answer questions with the lies that the questions ask for?

I need assistance here

(09-12-2010, 11:58 AM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]How am I supposed to pass my college history class if the history is just fallacy! I'm so confused - is this a catalyst? Am I supposed to answer questions with the lies that the questions ask for?

Unfortunately, if you want to pass your test, you'll have to give them the answers they want.

Unless you go talk to the prof and make special arrangements. You could tell him your spiritual beliefs conflict with what's being taught. If it's a small college, maybe he'd be willing to prepare an alternate test for you.

Is it one of those electronic answer sheets, or an essay?

If the former, there's no way around it. The answer is either right or wrong, as far as they're concerned.

If the latter, you would give the answers they want, but then write some notes in the margin explaining what really happened.

(09-12-2010, 11:58 AM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]How am I supposed to pass my college history class if the history is just fallacy! I'm so confused - is this a catalyst? Am I supposed to answer questions with the lies that the questions ask for?

When you have essay questions, add a line to show whose point of view you are presenting. This is actually a good habit for both academia and everyday life.

"According to our textbook, the pyramids were..."

"We learned in class lectures that cro-magnon man was..."

"... I believe this accurately summarizes the view from the documentary movie we saw in class, Official Views That Must Be Parroted to Pass The Test, Part 2." (Please use the actual title here! )

"Dr. Smith's famous theory is that..."

"The current mainstream paradigm as discussed by Mr. Jones says..."

"After the Black v. White debate of 1956, historians generally feel that..."

If you do not have enough room to add this disclaimer to the paper or answer form, add it in your own mind. "For the purpose of showing the professor that I understand the information she presented to me, I will agree that choice B best represents what she told us in her lectures."

You might occasionally find a question like this: "What do you personally believe, even if it contradicts the standard view outlined in the syllabus?" Unless you are specifically asked that, you are not responsible to provide this information. Nor is it dishonest to not answer a question that was not asked.

You can do this in personal life, and in business too. "According to Joe in Engineering, the part will take three weeks to build. According to Jane in Marketing, the part is worth $10,000 when installed. According to Jack in Sales, the part was promised to be installed two months ago. So, boss, what would you like me to report to the customer?" Or, "the New York Times editorial said taxes have to be raised to prevent a depression, but on my drive home the talk show host said that only lowering taxes can prevent a depression. My own personal opinion about taxes is that..."

Thank you brothers/sisters for the input, that actually helped me a lot. I will be answering questions in a format such as "according too..".

This way as I am responsible for the information, I am expressing it in a truthful matter from my perspective.

(09-11-2010, 06:31 PM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]Further on the oldest homo sapien skull was found to be dated back roughly 100,000 (130,000) years ago.

For what it's worth, I think the 1,300 year time frame Don speaks of is, I believe, in reference to human consciousness and less biological features. Thus when people dig up old 100,000-130,000 year old human skulls they are indeed just that- but they probably belonged to late second density creatures who were biologically preparing the species to become third density Humans (with a capital H)

No need to toss out science in other words.

Quote:Unless you go talk to the prof and make special arrangements. You could tell him your spiritual beliefs conflict with what's being taught. If it's a small college, maybe he'd be willing to prepare an alternate test for you.

It seems we LOO'ers have something in common with the creationists?

(09-14-2010, 03:07 AM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-11-2010, 06:31 PM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]Further on the oldest homo sapien skull was found to be dated back roughly 100,000 (130,000) years ago.

For what it's worth, I think the 1,300 year time frame Don speaks of is, I believe, in reference to human consciousness and less biological features. Thus when people dig up old 100,000-130,000 year old human skulls they are indeed just that- but they probably belonged to late second density creatures who were biologically preparing the species to become third density Humans (with a capital H)

No need to toss out science in other words.

Quote:Unless you go talk to the prof and make special arrangements. You could tell him your spiritual beliefs conflict with what's being taught. If it's a small college, maybe he'd be willing to prepare an alternate test for you.

It seems we LOO'ers have something in common with the creationists?

Regardless if I ever read anything in regards to Ra and Ra's words, I still wouldn't believe the Great Pyramid were built using sleds, oil, ropes and thousands of men in 23 years. It's impossible.

The difference between me and a creationist is that I believe evolution to be apart of creationism. Evolution can't just rule out the Creator. Especially evolution into Homo sapiens sapiens (Wise Wise Humans).

(09-14-2010, 11:41 AM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless if I ever read anything in regards to Ra and Ra's words, I still wouldn't believe the Great Pyramid were built using sleds, oil, ropes and thousands of men in 23 years. It's impossible.

I definitely agree with you. Regardless of what anyone has ever said about it (Ra included), there is definitely something mysterious about the structure.

(09-14-2010, 11:41 AM)LsavedSmeD Wrote: [ -> ]The difference between me and a creationist is that I believe evolution to be apart of creationism. Evolution can't just rule out the Creator. Especially evolution into Homo sapiens sapiens (Wise Wise Humans).

Also agreed- but it is interesting to see how we LOO followers, who seemingly are on the exact opposite end of the spiritual belief spectrum than fundamentalist creationist Christianity have in common a habit of dancing around scientific observation about reality in order that our beliefs may proceed without being maimed. I think this is sometimes not good... but this is a large subject, perhaps I will start a thread about this later today.

Suffice to say for now- I believe you are correct in viewing evolution as the impetus put forward by a creator, and not random processes as is generally assumed by science today.

Love and Light,
~Lavazza

(09-14-2010, 11:49 AM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]but this is a large subject, perhaps I will start a thread about this later today.

I think that could be a productive discussion thread.

Lavazza Wrote:I definitely agree with you. Regardless of what anyone has ever said about it (Ra included), there is definitely something mysterious about the structure.

Exactly. The pyramids are one of those things academics simply does not have a satisfactory answer for, and a lot of those who've spent time studying that time period will tell you just that. You might find, if you speak with your professor, that he/she actually doesn't ascribe to the standard view of just how they were built. But they're kind of buckled down into teaching whatever curriculum they're supposed to teach.

Looking at the size of the pyramids, and knowing just a little bit about physics.. there just ain't no damn way lol. Everyone kinda knows it, they just don't have any other good solutions that don't make them seem fringe.