cladking wrote:

> Chris Jordan wrote:
>
> > I have come to trust the old texts, but I have found it is
> much
> > better to get to know the tools and devices they had on hand
> > before attempting to explain them. the texts tend to be
> written
> > in ways that allow for any number of interpretations. It was
> > not until I had seen a 'shamir Worm' cutting/fracturing rocks
> > silently before I realized what the Arab and Jewish scholars
> > were relating when it came o Solomons Temple. Afterwards I
> took
> > the hints from the OT and texts for ways of using the device.
> > It proved very fruitful in expanding my explanation of the
> Ark
> > feats.
> >
> >
> [secretsofthesunsects.wordpress.com]
>
> Fascinating stuff here. I don't want to derail my own thread
> but is that "worm" merely intense light? Are you familiar with
> the associations of manna with the ark and the trek out of
> Egypt? ...And the association of manna with mfkzt?
>
Yes it is an intense beam of light, a perfect dish should make something close to a point, but because of the spherical geometry and the width of the sun, it makes a tube of light. That is seen by blowing smoke across the volume. It is incredibly potent and able to deliver the miracles of the OT.

Manna is an intriguing one. I have read of explanations that are based on water condensing on the font lid and worms growing in the moisture. this is explained away as a source of protein, which is reasonable enough I suppose. But manna from heaven is heavenly food, I suspect it is more to do with the fact they cooked bread in the Ark chest with the power of the sun. It is tough to prove of course, but showbread is the result according to the OT.


> One of these days there might be a lot of these alt ideas tied
> together and proven true.
>
The ancient solar premise is just a framework to deliver this.

> I believe that in every single case the authors of the material
> that has been passed down believed he was speaking "truth".
> This belief is what makes most of these ancient writings
> "holy". However, there were massive translation errors and
> confusion caused by language. How ironic that modern people
> hold the superstition that evolution of language is a good
> thing. We are cut off from our past by this evolution. We are
> cut off from the present by this evolution and people of the
> future may not understand us if anything survives an era of
> greed, waste, and impossibly poor quality where longevity of
> most products is measured in months rather than decades. Even
> books can no longer last more than a century and many are less
> than half that if my library is any indication.
>
Ain't that the case, somehow we have to cut back thru the mist to the realities behind the stories. Otherwise the future researchers will have an even more difficult task.


> > trust your own views, they seem much more beneficial to the
> AEs
> > than much of the current paradigms.
>
> I believe any person who knows much of anything has always
> encountered a lot of dissonance when they look at the Great
> Pyramid. It's simply absurd to think stinky footed bumpkins
> got together when they were barely out of the stone age and
> built one of these.
>
> Rather than "the pyramid exists therefore they used ramps", I
> believe a more accurate conclusion would be "the pyramid exists
> therefore it was not built by stinky footed bumpkins".
>
> People need to get used to the fact that the paradigm has
> failed to even address any of these issues. They can't address
> these issues because their entire belief system is founded on a
> different interpretation of the exact same facts. All they can
> do is point out their beliefs have beenm in place for 150 years
> and all I can do is show that the paradigm has failed. It has
> failed to fit the facts and failed to make accurate
> predictions. It has failed to explain most of the physical
> evidence. It is even faiuling to carry out basic science that
> everyone needs to answer the questions scientifically as they
> continue to count the number of angels which (whom?) can dance
> on the head of a pin.
>

It is not enough to prove the current paradigms have failed, there must be something to put in its place otherwise the same arguments will continue in their ever decreasing circles.

Regards

Chris