• Registered: 2005-10-05

Topic: Montalk: Dissing LArk and the Cassiopeans

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/m … te=10/5/05

Mr. Montalk

Most of your work stems from the above channelling, I understand. 
The discussion on the above forum is very long but you might like to get involved.  Vincent Bridges, Jay Wiedner, Dan Winter, have all contributed and it's exciting stuff.

Laura Knight Jadczyk is not at all what she purports to be and you might need to take another look at the fundamentals you outline in your excellent work.

Below is an extract where VB is Vincent Bridges talking.

Thannkyou.

Andy

Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans?
----------------------------

Greetings, salutations and felicitations,

Been off pursuing other objectives, and so have let this thread seek its own level. Fortunately, Stormy and Anders have been keeping it a float, with John Souttar adding a note of whackiness that is so appropriate for all these sorts of discussions...LOL!

Thanks to Sea Phoenix for adding a few inside comments. I would like to hear more about your interaction with LKJ, Ark and Fred during the period you mentioned. If you ´d prefer not to comment here, please contact me directly.

So even though they are all ancient history to some here, let me answer a few of Souttar/Sothis/Soter ´s questions;

JS: Is Laura really channelling herself in the future - is that what she actually states?

V: This is the new official version. Originally, the C ´s were aliens, possibly Greys, riding a Wave toward our reality, but such a position is hard to maintain without better information than Laura ad access to. So, she swutched to the future self explanation. Actually, any channeling that took place was of lower order astral critters willingly to say pretty much anything to keep the energy exchange going. Once Ark arrived, and Fred quit, things coming through got much darker...

JS:Those of you who knew Laura must have something good to say about her even though you have since travelled away from each other. I say this because plagiarism is mentioned a lot with regard to her but I am now seeing her stuff all over the place. What did she come up with that is original and correct?

V: Her "original" idea was the Wave/realm boundary, although it can be found in other sources in a slightly different form. Blending this with the paranoid reptile illuminati stuff created a powerful mythic witches brew. I found very little, save historical material she has lifted from others, that is correct. The Cs have the worst track record, on even getting basics facts correct, of any such material I have ever seen.

JS: Who has met Laura or been present at a channelling? I want to know more about this. Does she grunt, have a little fit then speak in a strange voice? The questions come from someone else? She cant ask and reply surely.

V: As SP has said, the atmosphere was decidedly casual. Fred is the one who went into a trance, so he was mostly silent during the sessions. LKJ was in charge and asking the questions that wer then answer by the planchette with both lkj and Fred ´s hands on it. If there was anyone there with any psychic ability, it was fred not Laura...

JS: Why did any of you get taken in originally?

V: Personally i was suckered by the promise of advanced information. LKJ did her best to seduce me, intellectually, and like so many con-artists, she can be quite persuasive. It wasn ´t until after the shit hit the fan that I realized what was going on...

More later...

VB

2 Reply by montalk (edited by montalk 2005-10-05 19:06:00)

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Montalk: Dissing LArk and the Cassiopeans

No thanks, I would not like to get involved. I have donated enough energy to the loosh-sucking archons to last a couple lifetimes over this sore subject. The moon bites the hand that feeds.

I draw a deep distinction between the Cassiopaean Messages and the derivative texts written by members of the Quantum Future School. As far as the philosophy, cosmology, and spirituality of the messages is concerned, I have received overwhelming confirmation from my own personal experiences, insights, and research over the past several years. My conviction does not require tearing others apart.

The personality faults of the human characters in this drama do not tarnish the core gnosis of the channeled messages. And besides, I base my beliefs just as much on the Ra Material as well as numerous other correlative sources, so whatever dirt people want to dig up concerning the QFS ultimately misses its target.

It's very interesting how those involved in this debate consistently argue petty trivialities but almost never tackle the logic or applicability of the channeled messages themselves. It might be because the subtleties and clues are beyond their willingness to comprehend.

This puppet show distracts from what really matters. Perhaps it is futile for me to say this, but I would advise participants to do a reality check and get back to pursuing their personal destinies instead of wasting time with this ongoing bitch slap rampage.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • Registered: 2004-04-21

Re: Montalk: Dissing LArk and the Cassiopeans

I agree, montalk.  Aside from the channeling her research is very good, but I do find the channeled messages compelling and much of it resonated for me.  I suspect if her work had no value at all she wouldn't be attacked so ferociously.

4 Reply by lyra (edited by lyra 2005-10-06 10:04:51)

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: Montalk: Dissing LArk and the Cassiopeans

Andrew wrote:

Most of your work stems from the above channelling, I understand.

Not to answer "on behalf of Montalk" or anything, but I think a lot of us would disagree that the Montalk material is some sort of "spin off" of sorts to the work of Laura and the C's channeling. 

I wonder why so many people believe that the two websites / authors / research material is intertwined in this manner?   How did this perception come about?



Andrew wrote:

The discussion on the above forum is very long but you might like to get involved.  Vincent Bridges, Jay Wiedner, Dan Winter, have all contributed and it's exciting stuff.

Why is it "exciting" when people choose to spend all their time ripping apart other people?

That's not exciting.  That's called a waste of time, and an energy drain.

And an FYI - These Jay Weidner, Vincent Bridges characters act like programmed robots.  It's like they've been programmed to endlessly, obsessively go after Laura and the C's material with tunnel vision, year after year.  It never ends.  They never get tired of it.  They never find other obsessions to obsess over.  Is this all that these guys DO?   Do they even HAVE a life??


Andrew wrote:

Laura Knight Jadczyk is not at all what she purports to be

Really?   Says who?

And even if she isn't......so what?   Why do you (or anybody else) care?   


Andrew wrote:

and you might need to take another look at the fundamentals you outline in your excellent work.

...Except that the "fundamentals", as you call them, aren't based on Laura's work, as pointed out earlier.  The Montalk site and its material stands on its own two feet, with or without the existence of Laura and the C's channeling.   


Montalk already said it best though:

Montalk wrote:

It's very interesting how those involved in this debate consistently argue petty trivialities but almost never tackle the logic or applicability of the channeled messages themselves. It might be because the subtleties and clues are beyond their willingness to comprehend.

This puppet show distracts from what really matters.   Perhaps it is futile for me to say this, but I would advise participants to do a reality check and get back to pursuing their personal destinies instead of wasting time with this ongoing bitch slap rampage.

Right on. 

So seriously, get a life.   Andrew, and everybody else who wants to keep dredging this crap up, over and over and over again, year after year after year.   Get a flippin' life.   It's sad, and pathetic at this point.  The world is turning upside at the moment, our personal realities are changing, our old existences are flying out the window, and this is what you care about??    You get excited about the idea of going to a forum soley to "diss" LArk and the Cassiopaeans?   

It is absolutely sad and pathetic.

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

5 Reply by Jen (edited by Jen 2005-10-06 22:25:40)

  • Jen
  • Guest

Re: Montalk: Dissing LArk and the Cassiopeans

Although i agree that our time is better spent pursuing our personal destinies than in digging up dirt on Laura and Ark (or on anyone else), and that Montalk's fine work stands on its own,  I'd like to point out
that Laura displays many of the same unhealthy tendencies as Weidner and Bridges, and can hold a grudge forever, it seems.   

Not surprising that her targets behave similarly with her.  Like attracts like, or in this case, don't-like attracts don't-like smile