Talk:Contact Report 117 - Revision history

Robert1957: Comment provided by Robert1957 - via ArticleComments extension

2012-04-08T16:35:46Z

Comment provided by Robert1957 - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 8 April 2012
Line 141:		Line 141:

	Seems like a never ending conflict between the negative and positive forces.		Seems like a never ending conflict between the negative and positive forces.
			== Robert1957 said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			After sentence 166 of Ptah nearly at the end of Billy's reply.
			"Damn it, not even children behave in such a way, for these let themselves talk with each other and teach each other."
			I believe following translation, especially the second part, corresponds better to the german text "Verdammt, nicht einmal Kinder benehmen sich so, denn diese lassen mit sich reden und sich belehren.
			"Damn it, not even children behave in such a way, for these let themselves be talked to and be taught."

			--[[User:Robert1957\|Robert1957]] 17:35, 8 April 2012 (BST)
			</div>

Barbarian216: Commandants or Free Will?

2011-02-17T20:25:28Z

Commandants or Free Will?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 17 February 2011
Line 133:		Line 133:
	--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

			[[User:Barbarian216\|Hawaiian]] 20:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Good work Benjamin, now this "discrepancy" between Col Wendelle Stevens copy and Billy's can only be explained by the Col himself, unfortunately he passed on. But one has to analyze the common variable between someone asking about the "missing" report of Moses (who plays a very minor role compared to the 7 main prophets) and Col Stevens, who unfortunately still harbored religious influences that often strayed from the truth.

			This common variable of religious dogma often “contaminates” the intent of the mission and causes confusion amongst those seeking the truth. Besides spiritual evolution DOES NOT make commands (even the High Council agree so), so why is Moses (10 commandants) so important that without him being referenced will invalidate this evidence?

			Then, would outside forces have influenced the Col work, was the Giza Intelligence playing havoc at this time or was it someone else like in the case at the Center when Billy's works were manipulated and things go missing without a trace?

			Seems like a never ending conflict between the negative and positive forces.

Benjamin: Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-16T20:06:44Z

Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 16 February 2011
Line 108:		Line 108:

	--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Benjamin Stevens said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Alright. I now have something from a good source:

			According to Christian Frehner of FIGU Switzerland, the following is Meier's German translation of the 8,000-year-old document:

			Es ist gesagt im prophetischen Satz des Künders Henoch: Er in seiner Mission als Prophet wird wieder sein in Wiederleben in mehrfacher Wiedergeburt als wichtigster Künder der Lehren des Geistes, wie sie sind gegeben in den Gesetzen der Schöpfung, und dem Erdenmenschen dargebracht und gekündet von den Wächterengeln von den Gestirnen der Lyra und der Wega, zum Planeten Terra. Der Künder Henoch sagt: Ich bin der Künder der Wahrheit, und in dieser Mission werde ich wieder sein unter wichtigen Malen mit der Benennung: Elia, Jesaia, Jeremia, Jmmanuel, Muhammed, Billy, so ich unter sieben Malen als Prophet werde den Menschen dienlich sein, ehe sich in deren Gesinnung der Wandel vollziehet zur Befolgung der Gesetze und Gebote der Schöpfung. So werde ich sein in Wiedergeburt zur Neuzeit, da der Weltenraum wird erobert, und da die Wächterengel fremder Gestirne abermals in Erscheinung treten. Meine Wiedergeburt zu jener Zeit wird sein als Billy und mit dem Namen Eduard Meier, der ich wohnen werde in einem Friedenslande des Nordens, das da genannt sein wird Schweiz. Der Mensch möge dann hören auf meine Stimme, so er geführet werde in das Licht der Lehren des Geistes.

			The following is Christian Frehner's English translation of the document, which he made in 2007:

			It has been said in the prophetic sentence of the herald Henoch: He in his mission as prophet will be (live) again in repeated lives in multiple reincarnations as most important herald of the teachings of the spirit, as they are given in the laws of creation, and brought and announced to the Earth human on Terra by the guardian angels from the stars of Lyra and Vega. The herald Henoch says: I am the herald of truth, and in this mission I will be (live) again in important times by the names:

			Elia, Jesaia, Jeremia, Jmmanuel, Muhammed, Billy,

			(and) so I will serve the human beings as a prophet among seven times, before the change for the compliance with the laws and commandments of creation will take place in their thinking (convictions). So I will be (live) in reincarnation in the new time when space will be conquered, and when the guardian angels from foreign stars will appear once again. My reincarnation in that time will be as Billy and with the name Eduard Meier, and I will dwell in a land of peace in the North, which will be called Schweiz (Switzerland). The human being then may listen to my voice, so he may be led into the light of the teaching of the spirit.

			[end of translation]

			Unfortunately, this now raises more questions, for which it will probably be hard to find answers. The biggest one deals with the fact that Wendelle provided an image in Message from the Pleiades Volume 4, which shows the language that Michael Hessemann translated into English, and this looks nothing like what is presented above. So one must wonder: how was that language which appears on Wendelle's copy produced in the first place, and why is Meier's information so vastly different?


			--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Benjamin: Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-14T17:31:40Z

Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 14 February 2011
Line 101:		Line 101:

	--[[User:Rrarena\|Rrarena]] 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Rrarena\|Rrarena]] 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Benjamin Stevens said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			But how can one verify this for oneself if the German is not provided? What is the German original, from which the above translation was made?

			--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Rrarena: Comment provided by Rrarena - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-14T16:00:54Z

Comment provided by Rrarena - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 14 February 2011
Line 94:		Line 94:

	--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 13:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 13:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Rrarena said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			The translation of the Honoch message is incorrect, Moses is not mentioned.

			--[[User:Rrarena\|Rrarena]] 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Benjamin: Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-14T13:20:04Z

Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 14 February 2011
Line 85:		Line 85:

	--[[User:Rrarena\|Rrarena]] 05:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Rrarena\|Rrarena]] 05:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Benjamin Stevens said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Rrarena,

			Are you sure that the translation given above pertains to the same document that is found in Contact Report 117? If so, from where was the German retrieved? I cannot locate it at all in Block 3 of the German Contact Reports. Or is this some other document given to Billy by Asket? After all, the one in Contact 117 is not said to be given to Billy by Asket.

			--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 13:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Rrarena: Comment provided by Rrarena - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-14T05:55:58Z

Comment provided by Rrarena - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 14 February 2011
Line 68:		Line 68:

	--[[User:Mikalm\|Mikalm]] 17:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Mikalm\|Mikalm]] 17:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Rrarena said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			The translation of the Henoch paper concerning the seven prophets given by Asket to Billy is poorly translated from the German... It is causeing much controversy... here is a better translation:

			It is said in the prophetic sentence of the announcer Henoch.
			He will again be as prophet of his mission in reincarnation in several rebirths as the most important announcer of the teachings of the spirit, like they are given in the laws of creation, and brought to the earth-men and announced to the earth-men from the guardian angels from the stars of Lyra and of Vega to the planet Terra. The announcer Henoch said: I am the announcer of truth, and in this mission I will again be under important times with the naming:

			Elia, Jesaia, Jeremia, Jmmanuel, Muhammed, Billy

			So I will servingly be among seven times as prophet, before in its sense of the change perfects to the following of the laws and directives of creation. So I will be in rebirth at the new-time, when the space will be conquered, and when the guardian angels of foreign stars once again step into appearance.My rebirth at that time will be as Billy and with the name Eduard Meier, which I will live in a land of peace of the north, which there will be named Helvetia. The man may then hear upon my voice , so he will be led into the light of the teachings of the spirit.

			Translated from German Contact report by Ken Crawford.


			--[[User:Rrarena\|Rrarena]] 05:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Mikalm: Comment provided by Mikalm - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-13T17:57:05Z

Comment provided by Mikalm - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, 13 February 2011
Line 54:		Line 54:

	--[[User:Alive\|-- M --]] 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Alive\|-- M --]] 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Mikalm said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			spotted a typographical error...
			" In the mad belief, a god being sith them, who in truth not does exist, they followed the pretentive and sponsored by American politicans wrong prophet, to end their lifes one year later under shots from murderers' weapons and by potassium cyanide in suicide."


			obviously what was meant in English is:
			"a god being WITH them, who in truth not does exist,"

			thanks to all

			--[[User:Mikalm\|Mikalm]] 17:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Alive: Comment provided by Alive - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-09T17:34:24Z

Comment provided by Alive - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 9 February 2011
Line 47:		Line 47:

	--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 13:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 13:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Alive said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			I think _____ insemination done on a virgin ____ would be _______ , considering the _____ and _____ of female human life form, which are the main components of her reproduction system which ______ by the ______ of ______ , _____ , ______ , and ________ of the long evolution of ______ and the _________ of _____ out of which the ______ and ______ get their characteristic ______ specifically _____ as somekind of detector-regulator that dialectically _____ and ______ the ____ of _____ , in order to ____ the development of embryo.

			--[[User:Alive\|-- M --]] 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Benjamin: Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

2011-02-09T13:43:00Z

Comment provided by Benjamin Stevens - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 9 February 2011
Line 36:		Line 36:

	--[[User:Markvd\|Markvd]] 02:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Markvd\|Markvd]] 02:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
			</div>
			== Benjamin Stevens said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			I've tried to find out as much as possible about the find story relating to the 8,000-year-old fragment, which I find to be rather fascinating, but haven't been able to find out a whole lot so far. I'm hoping that I will be able to learn more about this in the future. Here's what I have so far, which others might find to be interesting as well:

			At some time around the end of the year 1977, Meier received an envelope in the mail, which had no return address on it. Meier opened the envelope and found some photo negatives inside as well as a letter, which showed itself to be written by a man named Jim Crowley. In the letter, this Jim Crowley spoke of a fragment of an ancient scroll that had been placed on the Egyptian black market for sale several decades before. He explained that the fragment had been purchased in Egypt, together with other specimens, by a noble Englishman, said to be a private collector of antiquities, whose name still remains unknown to this day. The Englishman returned to England and added the fragment to his private collection there. Some time later, this Jim Crowley from England somehow came across the unnamed Englishman's private collection and secretly photographed the fragment. Jim Crowley then mailed the negatives of the fragment to Billy, along with the letter, asking if Billy or the Plejaren could decipher the letters; however, Crowley did not provide any return mailing address on his letter either. Billy then gave the negatives to Harald Proch, a photographer who was a member of FIGU in the 1970s, so that Proch could make some photos from the negatives. Once the photos were made and given to Billy, Billy immediately recognized the ancient Lyran script, the language of which he could still master rather well, and translated the document into German. Then, at this, the 117th Contact, Meier gave the photo and his translation of the inscription to Ptaah, who verified that Meier's translation was perfectly correct and then performed the analysis that yielded that the fragment was genuine and more than 8,000 years old.

			Hopefully more details about this story are still to come in the future.

			--[[User:Benjamin\|βενιαμιν]] 13:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>