Who were the "Good Guys" in Atlantis? - The Real Story?

[Syrus Magistus]

I've seen everything almost Stargate, because Wilcock said there was much truth in the first two seasons. The Ori are obvious stand-ins for the Orion crusaders, for instance. Ba'al in SG-1 has a whole movie dedicated to him where he uses a stargate to exploit the sunspot cycle and alter earth history so he can make himself the ruler of the galaxy. He's also the last of the 'snake-heads' to get toasted by the Tok'ra and the Tauri alliance. He's really given the most forgiving characterization of all the Annunaki in that series because the Illuminati are Ba'al worshipers on some level. The Beltane festival is today a mega-ritual of carnage and terror. Historically, it's told that many children were sacrificed to Ba'al (and his equivalent, Moloch), and orgies were held in addition to human sacrifice. Ba'al's worship even spread as far as ancient England, according to mainstream historians. Or is it still all backward? Have you visited the VigilantCitizen.com blog before? There's some pretty interesting articles, mostly about MK-Ultra/Monarch symbolism in the media, but also esoteric cult celebrations in the mass media known as mega-rituals, like how Osama's assassination was announced on May Day, and how so many bloody, fiery disasters occur between Mid-April and the beginning of May.

I have another question: David Wilcock insists that all of the local ETs are human-form, and that the Source Field has human DNA generated by these galaxies periodically as a form of local cosmic self-expression. Daniel, why do you say ETs were reptilian/nonhumans? Rather than just reptilian-lineage humans like Wilcock's research asserts. Surely he's made the point to you a lot in your endless phone conversations (because I know what kind of a man David is), and you also assert that we on Earth are hybridized genetic experiments, rather than thoughtfully-adjusted genetic stock that were gently imported here from all over by 6D management or something of the sort. Why do you support so much of David's work and the Law of One material, but contradict it in other places?

By the way, here's your pic of the day:

[daniel]

I have another question: David Wilcock insists that all of the local ETs are human-form, and that the Source Field has human DNA generated by these galaxies periodically as a form of local cosmic self-expression. Daniel, why do you say ETs were reptilian/nonhumans?

First hand experience. Remember that David only reports on the experiences of others; he was never involved with any of the black projects directly.

Rather than just reptilian-lineage humans like Wilcock's research asserts. Surely he's made the point to you a lot in your endless phone conversations (because I know what kind of a man David is),

What is left on the world now are the reptilian-lineage humans. The actual saurians left when they lost the war to the LMs back in the 13th century. But some do come by and visit the black project sites as consultants; they had them at Montauk in the underground sections and they are still spotted occasionally at various military bases.

I've not spoken directly with David for some time; not for lack of trying. I do email him frequently, but he seldom answers. I guess he's too busy with the Cabal/gold stuff, or chasing bears in Canada. I have been concerned; he is not the same man he was, prior to getting involved with that Drake guy and this "gold" stuff. (And having spent thousands of hours talking with him over the last decade, I know him VERY well.)

and you also assert that we on Earth are hybridized genetic experiments, rather than thoughtfully-adjusted genetic stock that were gently imported here from all over by 6D management or something of the sort.

Yes, I do. Though you could consider Enki and Ninkhursag's genetic work to be rather "thoughtfully-adjusted" since they did put a lot of thought and effort into creating Cro-Magnon man.

Why do you support so much of David's work and the Law of One material, but contradict it in other places?

I only support the Law of One, Book I. I consider the remainder of that work to contain distortions due to the instrument's use of psychoactive substances.

I support the conclusions of David, or others, that the evidence and natural consequences are in harmony with. I prefer to trust information, rather than supposition. And there is a great deal of misinformation and disinformation out there--on purpose--to keep people hugging trees, rather than looking at the evidence--because the evidence is not always warm and fuzzy. You need to have discernment, and that includes the papers and posts that I write... I do my best to express my understanding of things, but language has its limits, and if people engaged in communication do not have the same premises, then odds are misunderstanding is inevitable.

For example, if I told you that "1 + 1 = 10", would you believe me?

[Syrus Magistus]

I have another question: David Wilcock insists that all of the local ETs are human-form, and that the Source Field has human DNA generated by these galaxies periodically as a form of local cosmic self-expression. Daniel, why do you say ETs were reptilian/nonhumans?

First hand experience. Remember that David only reports on the experiences of others; he was never involved with any of the black projects directly.

So what if they're extra-dimensional entities, like the ones people who take DMT-derived compounds encounter? That Phoenix III chair supposedly opened portals anywhere the psychic wanted them to go, and the rules of what can exist in Time-Space have to be different. How do you know they weren't thought-form entities with a physical component or something equally exotic? Admittedly, I haven't combed through everything you've posted to the forums (or the Montauk series itself), but I've read all your PDFs so far and I've familiarized myself with the Law of One and everything else that looks credible on the subject and I just want to make sure A = A here. Something I've learned is probably false, and I'm fine with that, but I can't rip out another UFO seat for myself and replicate the project (not that I'd want to!), so I'm stuck with what's already been done by people other than yourself who were most likely lacking in common sense if they decided it was a good idea to let something with such horrendous consequences go on for decades on end without any responsible oversight.

What's your opinion of his insider, Henry Deacon/Arthur Neumann? He was on a panel at a Time Travel conference that went on right down the block from where I live a couple weeks ago. Your old boss, Preston Nichols, was also in attendance. I bought tickets but had to cancel for school-related reasons (which disappointed me greatly), but I got to listen to everyone talk on pay-per-view. From what I understand, Neumann is the other main 'Insider' who gave David the idea that local ETs are all humans of different colors and sizes, but with extremely similar prototypical characteristics. He was at the Zurich conference also, and spoke a little bit there. Have you looked into that guy at all?

Rather than just reptilian-lineage humans like Wilcock's research asserts. Surely he's made the point to you a lot in your endless phone conversations (because I know what kind of a man David is),

What is left on the world now are the reptilian-lineage humans. The actual saurians left when they lost the war to the LMs back in the 13th century. But some do come by and visit the black project sites as consultants; they had them at Montauk in the underground sections and they are still spotted occasionally at various military bases.

That lines up with what DW's sources say, but he describes them as very tall humans wearing red and gold outfits with blonde hair and white skin, with tiny circles on their masked faces which you can only see if you look closely, like the scales on a lizard's belly. They don't want you to look into their eyes and they never sit down at meetings. Allegedly, they are extremely psychic and may even occupy underground city-bases around the world. David's concept of a Source Field updating life into less feral shapes as it goes up the ladder seemed logical to me, but what do I really know about evolution and biology? Everything I know could be wrong two times over. Conventional science speculates that evolution produces the best predators after enough time, but you'd think they'd lose things like hard scales and sharp teeth or claws and tails after awhile, unless they're gaming the system through ET eugenics or something.

I've not spoken directly with David for some time; not for lack of trying. I do email him frequently, but he seldom answers. I guess he's too busy with the Cabal/gold stuff, or chasing bears in Canada. I have been concerned; he is not the same man he was, prior to getting involved with that Drake guy and this "gold" stuff. (And having spent thousands of hours talking with him over the last decade, I know him VERY well.)

I remember the Drake fiasco well. if memory serves, this site, as Soldierhugs, played host to much of Drake's material before it became your playground. Listening to David was a lot like revisiting the conversations my father and I used to have late at night for years before he passed, so I have a personal connection to him too which is more than casual, even though he and I have never exchanged a single word. Many circumstances in my life have mirrored his rather eerily. Apparently David's life was threatened pretty severely as a result of his Financial Tyranny investigation. I've never heard him cry before, but he did live on the air, somewhat, before being assured by some mysterious insider with a Dublin accent that he'd be watched out for so long as he remained honest and faithful, or something to that accord. I had never felt so angry on another's behalf.

and you also assert that we on Earth are hybridized genetic experiments, rather than thoughtfully-adjusted genetic stock that were gently imported here from all over by 6D management or something of the sort.

Yes, I do. Though you could consider Enki and Ninkhursag's genetic work to be rather "thoughtfully-adjusted" since they did put a lot of thought and effort into creating Cro-Magnon man.

The Enki/EA track is one I am familiar with from my early independent studies. It was part of my acquaintance with the Annunaki story. He's credited with giving us our Pineal/Tree of Life abilities and was that snake in the garden fouling up the Annunaki's plans for a slave race, because of his great compassion for them. But my sources were mostly New Age, so I took them with the appropriate amount of sodium-chloride and moved on. I guess I'll have to go back and read Book I of the Law of One series on its own and then adjust all my comfortable assumptions about Earth history. Still, I'd give gold to hear your thoughts on the Source Field model with regard to all this. Exactly how much to we actually have going for us, as David paints a very rosy picture of the universe at large, with only seven of the sixty-some ET groups visiting Earth being considered "negative", and with different-colored humans cropping up on every solar system, which are apparently bumper-to-bumper with every other solar system, counted in the millions in Law of One terms just for our level of intelligent spacial entities, again with technologies like gravity shielding and free energy encoded in the galactic mind for all to use.

I already think that we're all indeed sharing one Mind, because that 'listen-to-the-random-thoughts' trick really works for assessing what other people are thinking in real time, so we probably ARE all thinking with the same field of cosmic intelligence. And if it really has such a strong positive bias, those reptilians are as a severe disadvantage when you factor in all the things like free will principle and ethics-driven metaphysics. Then again, it's probably time for me to re-assess what i think I know in the area. I'm still confident that if they're a psycho-spiritually reactive field of etheric energy connecting everything, that we can channel ad infinitum, a properly psi-activated human can just keep through out exponentially more coherent levels of damage against these negative 'elites', who have a built-in limit to their source of power and their potential overall. No technique is perfect, and if there's any weakness to be exploited, any loophole, then their asses are ours.

I only support the Law of One, Book I. I consider the remainder of that work to contain distortions due to the instrument's use of psychoactive substances.

How would psychoactive substances distort the remainder of the work in and of themselves? As I understand it, those kinds of drugs re-tune the transceiver wavelength of the mind to pick up different aspects of reality. They just expand on what you've already got to work with. However, I must admit my understanding of this concept is limited, and I've yet to find a sophisticated enough study on the subject to shed my ignorance completely. I'll just go through Book I at my next convenience and knock down anything not in it to a lower level of probability in my future assessments. I've never used LSD in my life, and I'm not interested either, so I'll take your word for this.

I support the conclusions of David, or others, that the evidence and natural consequences are in harmony with. I prefer to trust information, rather than supposition. And there is a great deal of misinformation and disinformation out there--on purpose--to keep people hugging trees, rather than looking at the evidence--because the evidence is not always warm and fuzzy. You need to have discernment, and that includes the papers and posts that I write... I do my best to express my understanding of things, but language has its limits, and if people engaged in communication do not have the same premises, then odds are misunderstanding is inevitable.

Well, when all you have is a hammer…

For example, if I told you that "1 + 1 = 10", would you believe me?

Heh. My father once told me that there's areas of math which do work like that, so sure. I'll buy that… if you can show me your work.

[Gopi]

No, but neither were you. And its precisely that I don't just believe what I'm told that I asked these questions. Otherwise I'd just believe what you say wouldn't I?

Ah... a questioner! Pleased to meet you. When you question, all second hand knowledge has to be scrutinized... and scrutinized again.

My heart that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jeremiah 32:35)". Pretty obvious child sacrificing going on here.

Perhaps obvious, perhaps not.

Ok, but based on this response I struggle not to interpret it as something that no conclusions may be drawn from - thus only possibilities pointed out. Which means that no answers or explanations can be exacted, which means that its accuracy and value is just as much in question as what e.g. religious sources would say. They're also full of archetypal motifs and patterns to be identified, also not to be taken as viable facts. So its all subject to interpretation then.

Another excellent point. Have you considered that with a slightly different attitude, archetypal motifs and patterns themselves become "facts" and our current facts become blurry? And then one can go ahead and discriminate between the archetypes, in the same way one discerns among the facts.

Those conclusions involved an implicit discernment between certain religious characters as bad guys and others as good guys. I was trying to point out, that to me, it seems like some bias is involved here - where's the other side of the coin? Without the other side of the coin, why should anyone interpret it as unbiased, despite how much confidence can be put in your hard work (no sarcasm) and research? I'm not saying it IS biased - but if I consider the possibility of it being biased based on how you interpret it, it would be reasonably justified for me to say it is biased. I'm asking you to show me why its not biased. I'm asking for explanation, for understanding. I'm not name-calling.

Sorry, but I was not able to follow most of what you wrote after this, as I'm not a blogger and have a difficult time with these "stream of consciousness" presentations ("writing as you think" versus technical writing).

I am surprised by this response... Infinity's writing is fairly consistent and builds up logically, and has little of the "stream of consciousness". It is a valid question, how does one say that one interpretation is correct and another interpretation is wrong? For every book with one interpretation, another book can be found with its opposite. Bias has to be removed, and it is not clear how the bias IS removed.

I'm concerned about the validity of sources that this kind of historic research is based on.

So use pre-1950 books and ignore "Wikipedia."

Hold on... aren't all religious books pre-1950? When does it "switch"?

I'm not talking about the general "don't get along well" things, but I mean, in ancient asian legends there's stories (and supporting evidence found like rock/ground showing signs of nuclear weapons over 10'000 years old in those areas) of very big fights between disagreeing gods.

Are you speaking of the Ramayana or the Mahabharata? Vishnu is represented in both.

[infinity]

Ah... a questioner! Pleased to meet you. When you question, all second hand knowledge has to be scrutinized... and scrutinized again.

And on the other hand, this puts me at a disadvantage. People like you, bruce, daniel actually DO the research and find first-hand information. Its easy for me to sit here and ask questions. Its a privilege that you guys even take the time to read our posts, nevermind help us understand what you've found. I always hope that my posts don't seem to dishonor that privilege, but because of the way I choose to communicate, it will come across as rude at times. That is a flaw on my side that I have to work on.

Another excellent point. Have you considered that with a slightly different attitude, archetypal motifs and patterns themselves become "facts" and our current facts become blurry? And then one can go ahead and discriminate between the archetypes, in the same way one discerns among the facts.

Perhaps I am a bit stuck in my way of thinking. I have to admit the subconscious personality archetypal tools that people like Caroline Myss use to help people understand why they do what they do - that has helped me immensely in becoming aware of self-sabotaging issues in my psyche. Perhaps the same thinking tools can be used in the way that you suggest. I think this might be one of the things that tie into the next thing about bias;

It is a valid question, how does one say that one interpretation is correct and another interpretation is wrong? For every book with one interpretation, another book can be found with its opposite. Bias has to be removed, and it is not clear how the bias IS removed.

Perhaps archetypes have to be used to consider different interpretations to get value from "both sides of the coin". Otherwise value can only be gained from "one side of the coin" and the other side's value is lost. But this then seems to become more of a philosophical approach than a historical one. The goal with the historic approach would be to find out what "really happened". The philosophical approach can't offer that. And hence a distinction needs to be made. The historic conclusions cannot include bias, but it does not seem like a feasible task to remove it without perhaps tools of time travel, or remote viewing with strict protocols.

Although I think we're probably more interested in the present and the future than we are in the past.

LoneBear wrote:
So use pre-1950 books and ignore "Wikipedia."

Hold on... aren't all religious books pre-1950? When does it "switch"?

I think he's just conveying a general direction more than he is specific sources. He suggests I don't look at post-modern literature (which understandably might be rife with misinformation), but rather at older works which should be more informative.

[Gopi]

Perhaps archetypes have to be used to consider different interpretations to get value from "both sides of the coin". Otherwise value can only be gained from "one side of the coin" and the other side's value is lost. But this then seems to become more of a philosophical approach than a historical one. The goal with the historic approach would be to find out what "really happened". The philosophical approach can't offer that. And hence a distinction needs to be made.

"Really happened" is a different way of re-stating "what is the truth in that case?" leading you back to this topic once more. Historically too, it is not something that is set in stone, but every time you look at it again with fresh eyes, you realize another layer of what had happened. If the philosophy cannot offer that, then the philosophy is flawed and cannot live up to its name... a love of wisdom. If philosophy does not fit history, then either one or both are flawed as we understand them.

[animus]

I did not want to start a new thread. I throw it in here because there was also mention of Atlantis:
(although it was considered to be the region of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Uzbekistan and some part underwarter in the persian gulf)

I just read sth about a channeling (if right word) that took place around 2001 via an ouija board by Cain (the one from the bible story) on the origins of chess

- original name of chess was Ageio (like in Aegean Sea)
- even more similar to chinese game Xianqi
- object fo game: win bucks or Agei (=goat money similar). They are for Sangreal (=Holy Grail)

- Cain resides now in center of earth and refers to it as "jail" (=hell)
- there are entrances to this hollow part of earth, one being in HOTEL BIAZA in Aspen, Colorado

- 12 races of Atlantis (12 tribes of Israel)
- 3 still exist: ARYAN, FAERY, UNDERGROUND
- titans were also a race

I thought it was interesting and had to think of some similarities to daniels anthropolgy story
here the link:
http://tracytwyman.com/excerpts-from-cl ... nd-square/

[daniel]

I did not want to start a new thread. I throw it in here because there was also mention of Atlantis:
(although it was considered to be the region of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iran, Uzbekistan and some part underwarter in the persian gulf)

For new ideas, you should start a new thread. That's the idea behind a forum--to get better organization than just a one-page blog. So feel free.

I thought it was interesting and had to think of some similarities to daniels anthropolgy story
here the link:
http://tracytwyman.com/excerpts-from-cl ... nd-square/

I took a quick look... if you look at mythology as a historical account by people without the vocabulary to describe a industrial society, what it says is that Atlantis was at its height prior to the creation of humanity, meaning it was another Annunaki colony, namely ENKI's domain here in the Americas (the often described temple in the center of Aztlan was ENKI's ABZU--his ship). The 10 sons of ENKI became the 10 Kings of Atlantis, ruling their 10 provinces. Then his kids went to war with each other, just like their parents did.

I should point out that ENKI's title was "Satan," the Accuser. Poseidon, the central city of Atlantis, was most likely here in North America. Given that the American government has all those Satanic rituals and loves to promote that agenda, I'd bet that Poseidon was somewhere near Washington DC, prior to the earth expansion event that messed up the continents. The architecture in Washington DC is all done to occult principles, including the shapes and placements of buildings and streets. I mean, who else would build a giant building in the design of a pentagram (the Pentagon)? The obelisk of the Washington Monument matches the ones in ancient Egypt... the list goes on and on. And if you look at the United States FEMA zones--guess what, there are 10 of them, for the 10 ruling families that disguise themselves as "representatives." Like parents, like children.

Now the region you referred to near Iran is the ORIGINAL Annunaki colony of ERIDU (translates to "home away from home"). ERIDU was ENKI's "home town" and the first colony built on Earth, but it is not Atlantis--it was the center of MU. Atlantis came later, after orichalcum was discovered in what is now the Pacific Coast of South America, in order to mine it. (Surprise, surprise... the original mining site is just south of the Nazca plains, where they probably loaded shuttles with ore).

They have never found the remains of ERIDU, but based on the ancient records, I can pretty much guess its location as being right about where the Persian Gulf meets the Gulf of Oman, near Dubai, UAE. Actually, Dubai may be the surviving bits of ERIDU, as artifacts there predate humans at E.DIN (the Garden of Eden). I do not know what Dubai (دبي‎) translates to, but given the phonetic similarity... ERI.DU DU.BAI, it could mean something like "suburb of Eridu."

[deepfsh]

near Iran is the ORIGINAL Annunaki colony of ERIDU [...] the first colony built on Earth

Atlantis was at its height prior to the creation of humanity, meaning it was another Annunaki colony

So, those civilizations appeared as follows:

1. Eridu (Middle East)
2. Atlantis (the Americas)
3. Homo Sapiens (Africa --> Middle East --> East/West)

• • 

[Lozion]

They have never found the remains of ERIDU, but based on the ancient records, I can pretty much guess its location as being right about where the Persian Gulf meets the Gulf of Oman, near Dubai, UAE. Actually, Dubai may be the surviving bits of ERIDU, as artifacts there predate humans at E.DIN (the Garden of Eden). I do not know what Dubai (دبي‎) translates to, but given the phonetic similarity... ERI.DU DU.BAI, it could mean something like "suburb of Eridu."

I think also Bahrein (Two Seas) could be part of the ERIDU of old, from wiki:

Dilmun (Bahrein) is also described in the epic story of Enki and Ninhursag as the site at which the Creation occurred. The promise of Enki to Ninhursag, the Earth Mother:

For Dilmun, the land of my lady's heart, I will create long waterways, rivers and canals, whereby water will flow to quench the thirst of all beings and bring abundance to all that lives.