The Language of Vampyr

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
You're not seeing the simple statement they make, in the drawn example the centrally located symbol, the cross, is the sign for Nibiru, literally relating to centre.

I don't deny that, the point of transistion, nibiru is precisely where the map leads.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
In the first example, the model, they make offerings to the sunrise at the centre, the horizons as i mentioned are represented by the stepped mountain of the horizon, the mountain of light which was personified by zodiacal light appearing at dusk and dawn, even though they represent two mountains in fact there can only ever be one active the other being its pre-destined twin, the two always inter-connected, most burial artifacts from Jiroft concern themselves with this inter-connectivity of the horizons.

You are looking at it with your own eyes and picking up noise. Empty vessels do that.

As burial vessels they do communicate the mirrored location, as above, so below, the source of life to which the dead should journey to be remade, the chlorite itself is the storyteller in that one, most peoples identified themselves with a stone of some kind at some point in their social development, unless they skipped that stage, which was important to both identity and cosmology. At Scara Brae the stone circle there demonstrates an alliance of such societies in equal, mutual recognition, each stone from a different source, representing each of the clans in the circle of creation.

The pictures of vessels that I posted earlier detail the travails of birth and reproduction in the middle-, Earth, realm and how water served from those vessels will help combat those dangers. The serpents are the creative and reproductive forces, and as you can see, they're winning.

originally posted by: Direne
When you don't get a radar track of a flying object, you can always blame the radar.
When you do get a radar track of the scrambled jet chasing the UFO, but not a radar track of the UFO itself,
whom to blame?

I have been reading a fascinating book, Radiophysical and Geomagnetic Effects of Rocket Burn and Launch in the Near-the-Earth Environment by Leonid F. Chernogor and Nathan Blaunstein, published only last year.

The relationship between our activity around the ionosphere and UAP seems to be well demonstrated and extensively documented. From their (UAP) perspective, we're the aggressor/danger/or attractant in some other sense. We're the ones who aren't necessarily supposed to be up there and we do appear to be doing significant damage. Under such circumstances, were we expecting the red carpet? It seems to me there is a demand for attention. To answer your question then, we are to blame, clearly.

a reply to: Anaana

The concern is not with the Hermetic banality of as above so below, it's the mirroring of the horizons, see all the examples i found for this thread and the concern with the architecture of the horizon and it's portals, subdivision according to rising points of the sun.

Birth and death were associate with the horizons, not the middle, what is represented there in terms of the joined serpents is those two as a singular process, a bridging, the serpents simply facilitate translation and emerge from the waters of chaos.

An empty vessel...

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Bybyots

Serdgiam is right: time lines merge, and now you are the Giselian, a moment later you are not. This is done so that you and them cannot manifest all the information that is available to both of you. But I cannot explain it with simple words, sorry.

This. I hope you can elaborate more of this.
And I wish a clear answer.

a reply to: joshint

There are no easy words to explain what entanglement is. From a purely physical point of view, it refers to connections between separated particles that persist regardless of distance. These connections are instantaneous, and hence they are said to operate outside the usual flow of time. They imply that the separations that we see between ordinary objects are, in a sense, illusions created by our limited perceptions.

Physic have been able to entangle ensembles of trillions of atoms in gaseous form. You can find papers about entangled photons that remain entangled after being sent several kilometers away from each other. In fact, organic molecules like porphyrins have been successfully entangled. There is no theoretical limit to how large an entangled object can be. No limit. This all can be done to particles and molecules. However, consciousness is the fundamental ground state, more primary than matter or energy. Could consciousness be entangled, too?

Forget about photons and particles for the moment. Let's talk about emotions. Imagine you are separated some 3,000 Kms from your beloved one, someone to which you feel a strong emotional connection. By the way, though we can talk about photons and particles entanglement, proving that two life forms are entangled is beyond the power of Physics. You sure have no problem understanding emotional entanglement, yet this kind of entanglement remains unproven by physicists. Probably not their job, I guess. Therefore, there you are, 3,000 Kms away from your beloved one. True entanglement would mean that if your beloved one is harmed, you would feel the harm yourself or, at least, you would immediatly know. How can that be possible at all? How can a lioness be suddenly aware that her cub is in danger when she is some kilometers away hunting?

You have two options here: either ruling out that possibility (disguising it under the name "coincidence") or accepting it (under the name "premonition", or "intuition").

In my view, intuition exists, and therefore it must subjected to the rules of physics, and the only way to physically explain what intuition is or is not, is using the concept of quantum entanglement, with a small variation... The variation is this: from a physical point of view, we should dispose of the adjective "emotional", to simply state this: two life forms can be entangled at a consciousness level. No matter if they deeply hate or love each other. Love and hate are not physical properties.

"now you are the Giselian, a moment later you are not" means that. Means that when entanglement exists, whatever happens to them will have an effect on you. The opposite is also true. Are you satisfied with my answer?

Thanks for the quick reply just like Billy The Kid.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: joshint

"now you are the Giselian, a moment later you are not" means that. Means that when entanglement exists, whatever happens to them will have an effect on you. The opposite is also true. Are you satisfied with my answer?

I agree with this.

So, Entanglement. I am satisfied with your answer.

So, this is just Hyperbole:

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Bybyots
Time lines merge, and now you are the Giselian, a moment later you are not. This is done so that you and them cannot manifest all the information that is available to both of you.

I get it now.

Hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric

Can you explain how time lines merge?

Thanks again for the explanation Mrs.Direne.

a reply to: joshint

The explanation would be extremely boring. Suffices to know that technological development always reaches a point past which you need to be ethically evolved to keep on taking advantage of science and technology. This is not a moral law, it is, too, quantum mechanics. Mind and matter are also entangled, and if you do not take care of your soul, technological development stagnates. That's a beautiful property of Nature.

a reply to: Direne

Well, that explains it.

Thanks for clarifying Mrs.Direne.

a reply to: Direne

It's a fascinating property isn't it? Almost a 'moral fail safe!' At a certain point, a given species must have culturally and socially advanced alongside their technology, or the same processes that could liberate will only decimate. Including the hand (s) on the button.

Timelines, of course, merge naturally without our input as well. But once we observe it, it affects the field of possibilities. I have used it before, but i like the imagery of comparing it to a frayed thread being pulled through t the eye of a needle, where the individual strands go from possibility to probability to reality.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Time is all around us, imposing order on the sequence of happenings in the natural world. However, Time as such plays no role in the universe. We need Time because we need order. Time is meaningless without mass and distance. Mass is nothing without distance and time. There is only chaos without a lock between mass, distance and time.

We need to forget Time.

“Time - the time that we know through clocks and calendars - was invented”. (Albert Einstein).

a reply to: Direne

It would be a mistake to assume I perceive and experience time in a way that is familiar, or common.

Totally agree with the quote though. I would also apply the same thinking to everything from math to philosophy. They are, innately, human interpretations of processes external and internal.

I would still maintain that in this medium, time is relevant and real much in the same way that water is wet. Of course, like everything in existence, our understandings of these things are not omniscient. That, in and of itself, lends legitimacy to the concept.

That isn't to say it applies to all of existence, or even throughout this universe. The differential between time-dependent and time-indepedent mediums allows for a type of lift to be achieved much in the same way as wings on a plane. Such technology is beyond the current maturity level of the species though, and for good reason.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Sure, exploiting the differential between time-dependent and time-indepedent mediums you can draw energy, much as you can draw energy from the interface between space and void; or from the temperature differential between two objects; or by getting dreams and reality in close contact.

Sure 10 to the minus 33 cm is the closest you can get to Truth. And I agree with you: in this medium, time is relevant and real, as real as those who experience the passage of time. However, this medium is just one among many. The ideal one for time-dependent beings. A nightmare for those who are timeless. A curiosity for those who live outside Time.

Difference is the fuel. Wiping difference out leads to stagnation.

Kids playing with snakes. Think of them snakes still the same way, I say; they are not teacherlike, they are just emotional.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: joshint

The explanation would be extremely boring.

No, explanation would not be boring Mrs.Direne.

I really love a wall of text of explanation. Just so you know

a reply to: Direne

I was hoping you would see where I was going with that (flight, but what kind?).



I am not convinced that natural units indicate anything other than the limits of our own perspective, but beyond that, feel it is a number in flux. A standard that will change as (or if..) humanity grows. For right now though, emotions have such a firm hold on consensus reality..

How do you think this medium appears to those who have parts of their being in time-dependence, simultaneously and equally with parts in the timeless and outside of time? (love the distinction, by the way).

There is so much beauty in diversity. Why do you think there is such an effort to stagnate? Even if I do appreciate the irony, it baffles me. I can point to reasons and explanations, but understanding still eludes the lens.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Natural units are obviously unnatural, and they serve as units for those who create units: the observers.

Actually, units are misleading. Each culture and each civilization invents its own units. Most of them with funny names, like "feet", "second", or "light-year". They then proceed to measure reality using those units, and there is the trap; they perceive reality as per their totally unnatural units. What does really "unit" mean? What does "2 light-years" really mean for an oak? What does "3 Newtons" mean for an apple? Nothing. For a soul? Nothing, either.

Standards, like in "the standard model", are tools to wipe out differences. We have a new unit, it is called "football field". See, that craft measures "three football fields", as if we care about football, or as if fields care about crafts.

With limited observation tools, observations will of necessity be limited. With a limited language, descriptions will be limited. The physicist is now the observed one. The object under investigation. He, the lover of that whore called "standards", is now a unit himself. He hates diversity. He loves "sets", "labels", and "units". He owns what he measures, that's why he measures everything: to possess, to have. He needs to know the mass of, the speed of, the half-life of... But he fails when confronted to the soul. A soul the size of "three football fields"... How much does a soul weight?

a reply to: joshint

It would be useful if Past exists. It would allow you to think Hiroshima happened "in the past". I am afraid it does not work like that: a closed timelike means your "past" errors are your present. People scared of people. Sometimes you should keep them separated from each other, by vast spaces. Or by separated timelike paths.

It is not if there is life out there. It is if there is life inside of you.

a reply to: Direne

There was a lot of life inside of me, I've reached different understanding that resonates within.
But as time goes on I was slowly loosing my interest of what's within and beyond.
It seems what I thought was better, but as time goes on it seems to be not any better than what is without.
I think understanding within is not any better than understanding without.
I think knowing the soul is not any better than knowing life.
Knowledge of within and beyond doesn't seem to pierce what is without.
It doesn't make you a magician or a sorcerer. It seems simply futile.
I am yet to meet a real magician like these ones:

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Anaana

The highest level of close encounters is not the face to face encounter with a extra terrestrial intelligent being, as seen in the movies. This is so because the chances that those ET beings have a "face" is nil. For instance, there is no close encounters of the third kind with a virus. The virus is inside you, no way for a vis-to-vis encounter.

So you're saying that ET's are interdimensional so a vis-to-vis encounter is not a possibility?

Or maybe to ET's we are the virus when compared by your analogy.

a reply to: joshint

I think understanding within is not any better than understanding without. I think knowing the soul is not any better than knowing life.

I agree with you, joshint. But it is not an issue of knowing the soul OR life, nor of knowing what's inside OR what's outside, rather, it is an issue of knowing BOTH.

It doesn't make you a magician or a sorcerer

Sure, I agree with you. A magician owes too much to him/her who believes in magic, much as a sorcerer owes too much to the fact that the possessed believes he/she is possessed. Actually, if you do not believe in demons, you don't believe in demonic possession at all. Magic is tricking the eyes, and religion is tricking the soul.

So you're saying that ET's are interdimensional so a vis-to-vis encounter is not a possibility?

No. I haven't used the word "interdimensional" in that sense. Everything is interdimensional. If you refer to the ETH versus non-ETH debate my view is that arguing whether a life form comes from another planet, or from another reality, or from another dimension, or from another time makes no sense. First, let's establish whether there are so called non-terrestrial beings; second, let's discuss their properties; third, let's analyze if we need to change anything in our current description of reality.

See, the description of ETs coming from another dimension perfectly matches the description of the Higgs' boson. So nothing new. You see, that boson is also capable of incredible U-turns, it also appears from nowhere and vanishes in the wink of an eye. Does that make it an extra terrestrial with an advanced technology? No, at all. A virus can also travel airborne, enter your body, and destroy cells or get you mad. Is that an abduction?

What is what makes your ETs different from anything we know of? As I see it, they behave in a too much human-like manner. The very moment they fly in formation the entire mysticism about them vanishes. The very moment a flying object uses lights and lamps, the "magic" about them fades away. I find more interesting a jelly fish, or a lichen. And I find far more advanced a forest than any unidentified flying object, even when jelly fishes do not perform a 90 degrees turn at extremely high speeds.

Whatever those "aliens" do, you do it too. And with time, you'll do the same funny things: chasing others' airplanes, hovering over a lake, and avoiding any contact. You'll do the same. No wonder. No magic.

a reply to: Direne

I agree with you, joshint. But it is not an issue of knowing the soul OR life, nor of knowing what's inside OR what's outside, rather, it is an issue of knowing BOTH.

Yes, I know, you're right, as always. But I see what you did there.

Magic is tricking the eyes, and religion is tricking the soul.

What is your point here? That magic is not real? That I am a fool to believe in magic though the fact that it's just a trick by means of special CGI effects or props?

Everything is interdimensional. If you refer to the ETH versus non-ETH debate my view is that arguing whether a life form comes from another planet, or from another reality, or from another dimension, or from another time makes no sense.

Welp, you already know that.

What does ETH mean anyway? ExtraterrestialHuman? Please clarify, how can I understand if I don't know what it means.

But to most of humans I think it matters. To you it doesn't make sense cause you already know that

. But to us it matters cause of our limited views/knowledge. Especially when it comes to UFO.

I find more interesting a jelly fish, or a lichen. And I find far more advanced a forest than any unidentified flying object, even when jelly fishes do not perform a 90 degrees turn at extremely high speeds.

Again. Different knowledge, different views.

edit on 27-5-2015 by joshint because: I can. And it's funny cause every text below turns italic. (just noticed it) problem? :p