RS2--daniel

I'm mainly going to point to the supposed facts about the Moon. The online web page and book these are taken from do not have sources as far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, there was no Russian "Zond 20" mission that brought back iron. The cloud of water vapor doesn't seem to be described anywhere as being anything other than a small geyser, a haze, not a hundred square mile fog. According to normal dating methods, Moon rocks are automatically going to be older than Earth rocks because Earth rocks have undergone geological processes, according to current geology anyway. The accepted theory right now and the one that most scientists believe is the Moon-from-Earth theory, not the capture theory. There's absolutely nothing about the Moon having 8 miles of radioactive crust, I don't have a clue where that came from. Basically the whole list is just faulty, and after spending hours digging (I'm still up as 3:33 am having just looked at my clock. Freakin synchronicities refuse to leave me alone.), I can only begin to justify a few points as being reasonable. There are certainly magnetic rocks from the Moon, the Moon's crust does have a higher concentration of elements such as iron, chromium, yttrium, and so on, and it does reverberate quite well. The rest of the points are either blatantly false, or have only a small shred of truth.

WhiteFyre wrote:There are certainly magnetic rocks from the Moon, the Moon's crust does have a higher concentration of elements such as iron, chromium, yttrium, and so on, and it does reverberate quite well. The rest of the points are either blatantly false, or have only a small shred of truth.

There is a third possibility... the points are exactly right, but for some strange reason, the "black ops" folks didn't put that data out on Wikipedia. No idea why. (But I guess that can't be true, because we all know how honest and trustworthy government scientists are.)

You do realize that ANY project that starts to yield results that are a concern to "national security" (read that as "NWO dominance") are immediately blocked from public knowledge? That includes space programs. Programs get "cancelled" (hidden), the moment something interesting is found. In the days of Velikovsky and Childress, stuff still slipped out, and we can use those tidbits to keep from being completely in the dark.

daniel wrote:

WhiteFyre wrote:There are certainly magnetic rocks from the Moon, the Moon's crust does have a higher concentration of elements such as iron, chromium, yttrium, and so on, and it does reverberate quite well. The rest of the points are either blatantly false, or have only a small shred of truth.

There is a third possibility... the points are exactly right, but for some strange reason, the "black ops" folks didn't put that data out on Wikipedia. No idea why. (But I guess that can't be true, because we all know how honest and trustworthy government scientists are.)

You do realize that ANY project that starts to yield results that are a concern to "national security" (read that as "NWO dominance") are immediately blocked from public knowledge? That includes space programs. Programs get "cancelled" (hidden), the moment something interesting is found. In the days of Velikovsky and Childress, stuff still slipped out, and we can use those tidbits to keep from being completely in the dark.

Yes, this is exactly what I have found to be true. Anything, and I mean anything, that could be considered a threat is immediately compartmentalized and hidden from public view. Government PR campaigns are then put in place for consumption by the sheeple to explain that what you were seeing was swamp gas reflecting off of Venus which caused those lights in the sky to make 90 degree turns at Mach 5 (or something just as ridiculous depending on the occurrence they are trying to cover up).

Using material allowed in the public domain, by the very same people who seek to hide the truth that come out of these clandestine black ops I might add, as a source for disproving alternate viewpoints such as the ones presented in the Geochronology paper, seems to be a short cut to critical, free-thinking.

This is not a personal knock on you, WhiteFyre. It is just a common theme I see on alternative research websites and it is a total contradiction to me. Why defend the information bestowed to us by the intellectual prostitutes that are the mainstream scientists and media as a way to "sure up" what we think we know as truth? I'm not saying there isn't truth presented in some mainstream science and media, but what is their motivation to disseminate 100% truth with 100% accuracy to the general public? They don't have one because the more the public know, the more we can control our own destinies, and the less we need Uncle Sam to make decisions for us. There is a lot less money to be made in a society of well-educated, critical thinkers with the ability to know how to think and not what to think. And, well, that's just not what the planetary corporatocracy wants.

The main problem with the list is that as far as I can tell, Childress doesn't list any sources or evidence or anything really other than what he says the Moon does. I searched across the internet, and there doesn't seem to be anyone other than Childress and another website ripping the list as putting the points out there. There was an actual printed newspaper article from around 1971 I believe talking about the water vapor, but in terms of it being a small geyser that was detected by sensors, not seen by astronauts. Other than that, moonquakes are real, the Moon does ring exceptionally well, the crust does have a spike of rarer minerals, there's no information stating astronauts had any trouble drilling the crust, there's no information on how the Moon's crust could possibly have had 8 miles measured as being radioactive nor can I find anything saying it's unusually radioactive at all, the Moon does have a lot of magnetized rocks and yet lacks its own magnetic field, and so on. The iron pillar in Delhi has its own Wikipedia article, where it states pretty simply why it resists corrosion so well.

The other difficulties I've had are that multiple official measurements of solar activity are that the Sun has actually had a net trend downwards in brightness over the past few decades. It's possible that these are wrong, obviously, but I don't have any firsthand experience of the Sun being brighter than I remember, mainly because I'm just 20, and I have a good deal of light sensitivity as it is (it's always been extremely annoying to me).

Beyond that, my gut reaction to the corrected calendar states that the calculations are most likely right (I have yet to go through them myself), everything correlates, the mythos makes sense, but this seems to pose a problem for David Wilcock's research. In my mind, without having confirmed it, it seems to wreck the 26,000 year cycle because the 26,000 year cycle is incorrectly measured? Or is the numerology still there, just basically reduced by a factor of 10? I can't figure out whether or not this means the cycles are essentially nonsense due to improper counting or what.

WhiteFyre wrote:The main problem with the list is that as far as I can tell, Childress doesn't list any sources or evidence or anything really other than what he says the Moon does. I searched across the internet, and there doesn't seem to be anyone other than Childress and another website ripping the list as putting the points out there. There was an actual printed newspaper article from around 1971 I believe talking about the water vapor, but in terms of it being a small geyser that was detected by sensors, not seen by astronauts. Other than that, moonquakes are real, the Moon does ring exceptionally well, the crust does have a spike of rarer minerals, there's no information stating astronauts had any trouble drilling the crust, there's no information on how the Moon's crust could possibly have had 8 miles measured as being radioactive nor can I find anything saying it's unusually radioactive at all, the Moon does have a lot of magnetized rocks and yet lacks its own magnetic field, and so on. The iron pillar in Delhi has its own Wikipedia article, where it states pretty simply why it resists corrosion so well.

The other difficulties I've had are that multiple official measurements of solar activity are that the Sun has actually had a net trend downwards in brightness over the past few decades. It's possible that these are wrong, obviously, but I don't have any firsthand experience of the Sun being brighter than I remember, mainly because I'm just 20, and I have a good deal of light sensitivity as it is (it's always been extremely annoying to me).

Beyond that, my gut reaction to the corrected calendar states that the calculations are most likely right (I have yet to go through them myself), everything correlates, the mythos makes sense, but this seems to pose a problem for David Wilcock's research. In my mind, without having confirmed it, it seems to wreck the 26,000 year cycle because the 26,000 year cycle is incorrectly measured? Or is the numerology still there, just basically reduced by a factor of 10? I can't figure out whether or not this means the cycles are essentially nonsense due to improper counting or what.

I applaud your efforts to fact check and do your due diligence. Many people are just repeaters of the same tired logic and information. That type of mentality is like running on a treadmill. You work so hard without ever making any forward progress.

I'm glad to hear that you use your gut in tandem with your fact checking. Intuition is a powerful ally.

Best of luck in your continued research.

Kano

WhiteFyre wrote:but this seems to pose a problem for David Wilcock's research. In my mind, without having confirmed it, it seems to wreck the 26,000 year cycle because the 26,000 year cycle is incorrectly measured? Or is the numerology still there, just basically reduced by a factor of 10? I can't figure out whether or not this means the cycles are essentially nonsense due to improper counting or what.

Yes, it does pose some problems for David... the current 26k precession cycle did not start until 748 BCE, when the Earth's axis shifted to where it is now and we got those 5 "evil days" added to the calendar. We haven't even been through ONE precession cycle yet!

748 BCE was an interesting year... 5 more days to the year, seasons became more severe (more axial tilt) and the last of the mythological Giants died off. The most interesting bit being the Tower of Babel was struck down by a type of "cosmic lightning" (per Velikovsky) that created an EMP sufficient to erase the memory of most of the people around the globe, with an exception of those wearing metal helmets, like knights and royalty with their gold crowns. This is where we get "babbling" from--the confusion of Babel.

Obviously the readjusted dates that Daniel proposes cause a whole slew of issues with some dates of certain cycles and events that I'm certain a number of us have come quite fond of. I haven't read anything in quite awhile that has stretched my beliefs near to the extent that this paper has, and for that, Daniel, I thank you. I had already gone over Bruce Peret's "At the Earth's Core: The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution" which, among other things, sheds light on the issue of radioactive dating being off and its resulting consequences for what most believe to be the chronology of events; however, Bruce's paper was far more conservative in its dating attempts than Daniel's. The relative conservatism is a result of putting references to the mother civilizations in in their traditional time periods which doesn't change the advent age of man nearly as much as Daniel's assertions. My personal view of the sequence of events was left far more intact after "At the Earth's Core" than the shredded and tattered remnants of my chronological view as of now.

I've been trying to put events back into a chronology that fits the gamut of information on readjusted dating, and it is quite a lot to wrap the mind around; as well as, a size able amount of information to correlate. Now finally getting to my original intent for posting (sorry for the rambling). In trying to piece together a more coherent chronology of events questions came to mind concerning astrology, among other things.

If the readjusted dating scheme put forth by Daniel is an accurate representation of the history of the earth and man; where does this leave astronomically based dates and cycles? One cycle already touched upoun seems to be the precession of the equinoxes.

daniel wrote:Yes, it does pose some problems for David... the current 26k precession cycle did not start until 748 BCE, when the Earth's axis shifted to where it is now and we got those 5 "evil days" added to the calendar. We haven't even been through ONE precession cycle yet!

Could you elaborate on how you deduced this starting date? You mentioned in the paper that the 5 Uayeb days were added in 1548 BCE at the same time as the last destruction of Atlantis.

Now considering Reciprocal System (RS) Geophysics, which calls for changes in the dynamics of Earth's rotational velocity; its position in space relative to the changing stellar class of the sun; the orientation of the crust, magnetic poles, and as quoted above by Daniel the axis, how can the precession have any coherent precession? It seems as if something would always happen to disrupt the cycle, such as a change in orbit or shift of the axis, before it could be completed. In addition, what; according to RS thinking, would be the cause of the wobble of the axis?

WhiteFyre wrote:Beyond that, my gut reaction to the corrected calendar states that the calculations are most likely right (I have yet to go through them myself), everything correlates, the mythos makes sense, but this seems to pose a problem for David Wilcock's research. In my mind, without having confirmed it, it seems to wreck the 26,000 year cycle because the 26,000 year cycle is incorrectly measured? Or is the numerology still there, just basically reduced by a factor of 10? I can't figure out whether or not this means the cycles are essentially nonsense due to improper counting or what.

WhiteFyre brings up major point in my opinion with regard to David's research. In his Divine Cosmos series and book Source Field Investigations he attempts to prove, among other things, the reality of a 75,000 year 3rd density cycle of experience mentioned in the Law of One series, and its concluding harvest and ascension to 4th density experience. The 3rd density cycle, for those who haven't delved into his work or the Law of One, are comprised of three 25,000 year segments termed "major cycles". In his research he elucidates the connection between the aforementioned cycles; the Mayan calendar cycles; the precession of the equinoxes; cyclically repeating extinctions, cataclysms, and how all these things point towards the restructuring of the environment (density) of our solar system and planet for ascension (4th density experience).

I don't remember specifically, as its been awhile since I've read any of those sources, but he may or may not have mentioned the Yuga cycles as well. If he didn't he should have since they fit quite snug within the group of cycles mentioned with their 24,000 year cycles, and can be broken down into smaller cycles of 3,000 6,000 and 12,000 years. There is the Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga, which correspond to the Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Iron ages respectively. The Maya major cycle is 25,627 years made up of five 5,125 year cycles. Now, with all of the cycles mentioned thus far having been repeatedly stabbed and slashed in vital arterial regions I feel it might be prudent to attempt to staunch the bleeding and preform some major surgery.

To attempt to answer your questions WhiteFyre, yes the cycles as previously known seem rather discordant in light of the proposed dating adjustments, chief among them being the recalibrated start of humanity at around 6000 years ago. Unfortunately a quick fix such as reducing by a factor of 10 most likely wouldn't work sense, if I am correct in understanding your question, attempting to squeeze what was once thought to be 75,000 static years of proposed humanity into 6000 dynamic years isn't a walk in the park, at least not a park I would frequent. I don't believe the cycles are complete nonsense, as we most assuredly do have measurable time cycles. The physical evidence for these cycles include, but are not limited to, ice core samples showing major changes in planetary environment, geographic strata displaying the same, fossil records revealing extinction level events again pointing towards major planetary climate changes. Also a look into cyclology, the study of how events cyclically repeat themselves throughout history, with the adjusted age of human civilization in mind combined with the physical data might reveal the re-harmonized cycles.

Revisiting the beginning of the 3rd density cycle 75,000 years ago mentioned by Daniel in a footnote on page 3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the readjustment of what is commonly thought to have happened 50,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago most likely preclude something happening 75,000 years on the adjusted timeline from having anything to do with a law of one reference of 75,000 conventional years ago. That is unless it is being suggested that Ra encoded the years to correlate to both time systems, two analogies come to mind to attempt to convey what I'm really trying to get across here, the layers of an onion, and the octave (sub octave).

I've always wondered how many people my age were actually into this specific vein of knowledge. It's nice to know that there are others out there. Thanks for piping up WhiteFyre, it gave me a kick in the pants so to say. I've always been the lurker and never actually participated in forum conversation. I second your comment on not noticing a change in the brightness of the son in the past 20 years. Again I apologize for the rambling nature my post. I didn't intend for it to be anywhere near this long, but got a little carried away.

Hi SpaceMan

I'm also interested the science in The Law Of One series and fan of David Wilcock, cuz without his "2012 Enigma" video in youtube back in 2007-2008 I wouldnt be here now.

However I recall Ra saying something like this "your year" and "your years" and also kept on saying that the "difficulties in the language" or something like that, so maybe the years got mixed up if they do keep changing from time to time. This also brings a question to Daniel.

So if years kept changing over the "aeons" or ages then how the days and hours were fixed? Or were them days in fixed 24,som hours at the times before? I think if the gravity and mass of the Earth is affecting to time flow then lower the mass slower the time passes, like I read from the recent paper that "day"(back then) was as long as a week nowadays. Unless it was in the gravitational lock times. However the earths mass would be affecting time flow.

I've also imagined the 3D time "zone" like in the layers of time in front of me because all we perceive is history on some levels only for microseconds or so depending entirely of distance. I've been doing it many years now, timing things like doing estimates on the location where im walking to. I think I have fairly good idea what it lookslike in the other dimension, but I cant know for sure untill I really percieve it. And truly I really dont care about Earths history to be argueing about it who is wrong and who is right, time is relative no matter what and Universe has its "agenda" so, I'm really just so observe and learn, according to my intuition, but still interested on some level of all things, new things to me atleast.

SpaceMan wrote:Could you elaborate on how you deduced this starting date? You mentioned in the paper that the 5 Uayeb days were added in 1548 BCE at the same time as the last destruction of Atlantis.

Originally, this paper covered the time period up to 1AD, but it was becoming more of a book than a paper, so I divided it into sections with this section focusing on the "creation of man" time frame. That entry in the table on page 16 is a typeo, left over from part 2 when I removed the table cells for the 750 BCE era; the 5-day calendar change was in the 6th Baktun, as mentioned earlier, not the 4th. I have removed it and sent an update to Aaron.

SpaceMan wrote:The Maya major cycle is 25,627 years made up of five 5,125 year cycles. Now, with all of the cycles mentioned thus far having been repeatedly stabbed and slashed in vital arterial regions I feel it might be prudent to attempt to staunch the bleeding and preform some major surgery.

David and I have been friends for years, and I've been a big follower of the Law of One material since the early 1990s... wasn't easy for me, either.

It would be nice if everything worked to a stopwatch, but given a half-century of "end of the world" dates I've lived through, with absolutely nothing happening, I really have to question those systems--and I did. What I found when studying the Reciprocal System is that it is not as much a matter of "learning," as it is "unlearning" all the nonsense we've been pumped full of, and allowing nature to run its course with natural consequences. And when that happens, you normally end up with a simpler view, that makes a lot more common sense.

SpaceMan wrote:Unfortunately a quick fix such as reducing by a factor of 10 most likely wouldn't work sense,

10:1 is only an estimate for the last 50,000 "conventional" years; the error is exponential past that.

SpaceMan wrote:if I am correct in understanding your question, attempting to squeeze what was once thought to be 75,000 static years of proposed humanity into 6000 dynamic years isn't a walk in the park, at least not a park I would frequent.

That is not what the Ra Material says. Ra talks about 75,000 year 3rd density cycle--not a 75,000 year Cro-Magnon cycle. Neanderthals are 3rd density creatures, and when you adjust the radiometric dating of the Cenozoic Epoch, you find Neanderthals making their appearance around 75,000 "corrected" years ago.

SpaceMan wrote:Revisiting the beginning of the 3rd density cycle 75,000 years ago mentioned by Daniel in a footnote on page 3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the readjustment of what is commonly thought to have happened 50,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago most likely preclude something happening 75,000 years on the adjusted timeline from having anything to do with a law of one reference of 75,000 conventional years ago.

I believe Ra's 75k to be a value in the "corrected" system, not the conventional system, so it does not need to be adjusted.

You know, when I was your age, the sun was actually YELLOW in the sky, not white like it is today. Take a good look now, so you can tell your grandkids what the sun used to look like when you were their age!

I've passed on your Reciprocal System questions to Bruce.

What a great exchange and discussion here. When we first set up this forum it was precisely aimed and intended for this type of exchange and discussion/sharing of knowledge and perspective.

I know that Daniel values this as well.

Thank you for all the great inputs and questions here.

Aaron