Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here)

berathebrain · 01-27-2010, 08:12 AM

Hi Abraxas.

I have always wondered how in the world does the Rodin coil achieves the effects it achieves. Like making a monopole magnet out of a steel bar when a pulsed direct current is running through the coil.
Also, there is this video with Rodin himself, Nassim Haramein and a guy named James (I think that is his name), where James shows how to make a speaker out of a Rodin coil and permanent magnet. What is producing the sound here?
Also, could this coil have something to do with free energy?

Have you heard of Steven Mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvLuQOKOVXQ and his motionless generator, where he somehow draws the energy from the vacuum or from all the electromagnetic frequencies that bombards the Earth all the time. Anyway, I was interested is that some kind of a hoax or it could really be done?

Thank you for your patience with this questions.

truthseeker · 01-27-2010, 02:19 PM

Hi Abraxasinas,

Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians).

I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum).

So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: -

Question 1

Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm plus this beautiful video, http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...90301316220374 from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true.

The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories?

Question 2

The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here, http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events.

If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that.

For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website (http://www.etheric.com/) or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website?

So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective?

Question 3

Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see http://alignment2012.com/ plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun?

Question 4

a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar?

b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)?

c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle?

d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation?

Question 5

What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession.

Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time?

Question 6

My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon.

The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question?

Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation.

Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement?

Question 7

The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.). He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory.

However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga.

John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle?

Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: -

“The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik****, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik****. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik**** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.”

So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE.

So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system.

Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle.

So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent?

Question 8

a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era.

Do you concur with this?

b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments.

Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view?

c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019?

Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special?

d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment?

Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here?

Question 9

Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy.

This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it.

From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years.

However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/idiot.html - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507655.pdf ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane.

Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane.

It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe.

It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is?

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same?

Question 10

It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band.

This reference, http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy.

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone?

Question 11

What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy?

This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030924.html), by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG.

However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423 and http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system.

I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG?

Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...nother-galaxy/).

Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system?

Final Comment

That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me.

It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to.

Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us.

Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer!

I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false.

Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker (Andrew)

Firstlook · 01-27-2010, 02:37 PM

To the above post: Awesome.

eleni · 01-28-2010, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firstlook

To the above post: Awesome.

My thoughts too!

hippihillbobbi · 01-27-2010, 02:59 PM

Abraxas --

Thanks for your answers to my last questions ..... and for all your Other Answers to us all as well!

New questions:

1) What do you mean exactly by the following, "Humanity is the focus point of the entire universal evolvement, not just galactic, not just supergalactic, but universal." ? Does this have anything to do with "the whole only being as strong as its weakest part?" Or the fact that this earth/consciousness-shift has been planned for so long by the Logos?

2) Since the concept of time is "illusionary," does this imply that polarity (good-bad, etc) exists throughout eternity?

3) Will every soul eventually be reunited with its source .... and if so, what do people mean when they say things like, "they will return to their source as space dust", seeming to imply an inferior state to other ways-of-being "joined to the Creator"?

4) Is John, the "beloved disciple," truly the author of Revelations?

Many thanks, AA!

hippihill

abraxasinas · 01-28-2010, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippihillbobbi

Abraxas --

Thanks for your answers to my last questions ..... and for all your Other Answers to us all as well!

New questions:

1) What do you mean exactly by the following, "Humanity is the focus point of the entire universal evolvement, not just galactic, not just supergalactic, but universal." ? Does this have anything to do with "the whole only being as strong as its weakest part?" Or the fact that this earth/consciousness-shift has been planned for so long by the Logos?

One cannot fault your intuition hippihill.
Yes, the Logos which you may understand as the Intelligence of the Heart of Jesus incarnate; is cosmic as an universal archetype.

The Earth is the focus for the physical manifestation of this Logos.
So Yeshuah the One Logos seeks to 'extend the family of the Logii' in himsherself manifesting as the One in Many.
Doing this will allow the ABBA, the Cosmic Father to for the first time ever in the history of the metaphysical universe (the physical universe is a subset of the metaphysical one) to become a GrandFather.

So the 'One Son of God' is required to have children of his own and those children are the 'Sheep of the Good Shepherd' as encoded and hitherto mistranslated by all 'readers' and 'analysers' of those encodements.

All the 'Sheep' able to recognize the One Logos within themselves, will BECOME Logii of the ABBA themselves and so become able to multiply the One Universe in Multiverses, using however the existing Oneness of the Logos as their own Kernel or Seed.

2) Since the concept of time is "illusionary," does this imply that polarity (good-bad, etc) exists throughout eternity?

As a context for the unity to exist in this is necessary.
The difference is however the KNOWING of the polarity (The Real Knowledge of Good and Evil as encoded) and thePHYSICAL 'Compressed and Concentrated' EXPERIENCING of this polarity.

Gaia, to become the Cosmic Mother of All That Is, took it upon herself to SERVE as the 'collector bottle' for this physical suffering and experiencing, known as the 'Path of a galactic civilisation in selfforgetfulness - a Humanity Lost'.

This is what the Birth of the Baby of the StarHumanity implies.

This birth will end the 'collecting of the bad vibrations say' and reverse the 'collecting sink' or planetary Black Hole into a planetary White Hole as a 'data emitter' releasing all of this collected negativity back into the cosmos just like a 'Horror Movie' which then can be watched by ALL OTHERS. The ETs so will NEVER have to experience physical selfdestructions as experienced by humanity and the Gaian lifeforms; because THEY can 'watch the movies' of Gaian History and LEARN from that how NOT to BE a galactic sentient civilization.

3) Will every soul eventually be reunited with its source .... and if so, what do people mean when they say things like, "they will return to their source as space dust", seeming to imply an inferior state to other ways-of-being "joined to the Creator"?

The 'space dust' simply refers to the mortality of bodyforms and the 'star dust' has become a label for the immortality of the bodyform by certain practitioners of the translators of the cosmic universal archetypes.

Do you think or feel that God will 'chuck' parts of herhis body form away as 'bad' and not belonging?
It is fear mongering and a derivative from the symbols about the 'Last Judgement' of the Logos between the right sheep and the left goats.
This 'Last Judgement' archetype refers to your 'false images' of yourself and not to separate entities or beings.

It is like you put a photo of you on the wall and you 'hate' this picture of you as it does not accentuate your nice pretty looks and say sexy qualities.
So you decide to take another photo of you to replace the one you don't like.
You then chuck the 'old picture' in the 'Lake of Fire and Brimstone' and 'show off' your new picture.

The Unification of yourselfd requires your 'fake selfimage' to be destroyed and this is the meaning of scriptures, when it says: 'Two are in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left behind'.
You are both; you and your shadow say or your yang as the Brimstone and your Yin as the Fire. Your Logos, copied or obtained from the One-Logos will then be the Lake containing BOTH your Yin and yourt Yang fully expressed.
All false images will 'burn forever in the hell' within yourself, as you then have graduated to be the Creator of your own Hell fieryness and your own Heaven icyness. You will become a MasterDevil and a asterAntiDevil subject to your choosings and your One-To-One partnership as an Individuated Logos with the Common Logos, common to All.

4) Is John, the "beloved disciple," truly the author of Revelations?

Yes, he is!

Many thanks, AA!

hippihill

Abraxas

abraxasinas · 01-27-2010, 09:22 PM

Hi Abraxasinas,

Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians).

I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum).

So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: -

Question 1

Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm plus this beautiful video, http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...90301316220374 from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true.

The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories?

Hi Andrew!

There are aspects of the Hannes Alfven cosmology which are a definite part of the Thuban cosmology; such as the integalactic magnetic fields, plasma waves and the general ubiquosity of electric currents in the universe. The manifestation of those physical phenomena are however a consequence and emergent from the standard mainstream models and in no manner require abandonment of well founded topics such as neutron stars, Big Bang Cosmogenesis and the 'dark energy' 'missing mass' scenarios (also see later answers).

The 'Electric Universe' manifests via the actual emergence of inertia from a noninertial (you may term it electric in the permittivity of 'free space') pecursor, we call gravita.
This then becomes the reason for Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.

Here are some links as to the Nature of Mass/Inertia as Monopolic Electricity.

http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder9.pdf

http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder7.pdf

Question 2

The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here, http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events.

If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that.

For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website (http://www.etheric.com/) or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website?

So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective?

We would agree on the general idea of the cosmic rays as being emitted from the galactic center as a 'collective group consciousness' (see answers to later questions); but would not support the substitution of the Mother Black Hole by a Mother Star. The Thuban astrophysics is fully founded and based on the basic solution of Einstein's field equations of General Relativity in the Schwarzschild metric and so the Black Hole astrophysics of curved spacetime and gravitation on all levels.
The cosmic rays are actually a spectrum of high energy superstring classes as a remnant of the inflationary epoch preceeding the Big Bang Standard Cosmogenesis of a thermodynamic expansion of a Black Body Planck Radiator (following a de Broglie MatterWave Inflaton-Instanton).

So generally we do not support the LaViolette cosmology in its mainstream deviation.

Question 3

Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see http://alignment2012.com/ plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun?

Yes, this is an acceptable wording.

Question 4

a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar?

The 8x8=64 Cycles of the Metamorphosis of the Human Chrysalis
with the link below in b)indicates an Afterthought in InSpaceTime creating the Chrysalis fom the Logos of the Forethought in NoSpaceTime.

b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)?

http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id179.html

c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle?
Yes, one fifth of 65 baktuns in 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 kin/days.

d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation?

Some Maya are free to carry different viewpoints from other Maya; just as is everyone else.
The Thuban perspective considers this the end of the 5th cycle.

Question 5

What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession.

Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time.

Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time?

65 baktuns are 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 days for 25,626.8096 civil (Gregorian) years.
Yes, we agree with your statement, that the precessional rates are not constant over lengthy periods of time. That is why we term it THIS precessional Cycle of 65 baktuns and refrain from extrapolating this cycle onto earlier time periods.

Question 6

My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon.

The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question?

Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation.

Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement?

We agree with your description and emphasize that BOTH and other cycles are relevant. That is why we term it THIS precessional Cysle of 65 baktuns and refrain from extrapolating this cycle onto earlier time periods. There are also 'Wandering Planets', such as Neptune, now becoming mainstreamed in the availability of better technology to track such orbital dynamics and deviations.

Question 7

The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.). He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory.

However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga.

John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle?

Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: -

“The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik****, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik****. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik**** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.”

So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE.

So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system.

Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle.

So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent?

Not as much contradiction, but perception and analysis in encompassments.

How did the Maya know the 'End of Time' and the ending of the Great Cycle of the human presence on Gaia?
Some of my discourse is a little technical, describing calendrical systems and such; but it is given to show how the Mayan Calendar is correlated with the Gregorian one, the latter being the scientifically accepted standard of today's timekeeping.

The Great Platonic Year utilises the change of 1 degree per 72 years or 50 arcseconds per year to specify a complete transversion of the Zodiac of the Milky Way in 72x360=25,920 years for a precessional cycle.
For comparison the angular sizes of the sun and the moon coincide at 0.5 a degree, so allowing the possibility of annular eclipses to occur.

But this precessional cycle changes, being constant in approximately 41,000 year periods and as an effect of the 'wobbling' of the earth's axis due to its deviation from exact sphericity.
Gaia as a planet is flattened at the poles to form the geometry of an oblate ellipsoid and this geoemetry results in precession of the polar axis, tracing out an ellipsoid about the celestial poles.

This precession then changes over great time periods in the interaction of the sun, the moon, other planets and the possible interaction with gravitating extrasolar bodies such as asteroids and comets.

The present calculated rate of precession is about 71.6 years per degree or 50.3 arcseconds per year and so for a reduced Platonic Year of 25,765 years.

Because the moon is receding from the earth due to tidal effects at about 38 millimeters per year or 38 kilometers per megayear, the precessional duration would increase substantially over timespans measured in millions of years. But this rate is halved to about 20 millimeters per year so 600 Million years ago, when a solar year was about 400 days for about 22 hours in a day.

The tracking of the celestial movements are the basis for cyclicities and the invention of calendars.
A Tropical Year of 365.24219 mean solar days (msd) describes the movement of the Earth in orbit about the sun relative to the vernal equinox and because of precession the Tropical Year is about 20 minutes shorter than the Sidereal Year of 365.25636 msd and which measures the earth's orbit relative to the 'fixed' stars.

Elliptical precession relative to the fixed stars requires about 112,000 years to complete a cycle and the Anomalistic Year of 365.25964 msd relative to the sun's perihelion adds another 21,000 years to 133,000 years to correlate the three different years.

An Eclipse Year of 346.62003 msd specifies the interval between successive passages of the sun through a given node of the moon's orbit and as the lunar nodes move westwards by over 19 degrees per year in regression, the Saros Cycle of just over 18 years and of 223 lunations or 6585.32 msd closely approximate 19 Eclipse Years of 6585.78 msd.

The difference of 0.46 of a msd then indicates the reoccurrence of the saros eclipses on a location shifted westwards by so 135 degrees.
The saros cycle was known to the Maya, the Babylonians and to the ancient astronomers of human prehistory.

Related to the Saros Cycle is the Metonic Cycle, known to Greek and Hebrew calendar makers and correlating the 19-year-cycle of lunations to 19 Tropical Years with 235 Synodic Months, each of 29.53059 msd to within 2 hours.

This then is compared to the Civil Year of 365.2425 mean solar days and based on the Julian Year of a Century of 100x365.2425=36,524.25 mean solar days.

But for the recent human history, a greater cycle of 133,000 years can now be used to specify this human evolvement to the present nexus point in linearly measured calendrical time.

About 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics are found in the archaeological fossil record and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthal Man had largely disappeared from Asia and by 30,000 years ago slowly became extinct in Europe.
About 100,000 years ago existed the largest primate hitherto identified.
Gigantopithecus Blackii was over 3 meters tall and weighed up to 600 kilograms and fossils were found in Southeast Asia.

The earliest Homo Sapiens Sapiens characteristics are found in the fossil record at so 100,000 years ago and the cultural leap into cave paintings and art began so 30,000 years ago with the great change from hunter gatherer to farmer and domesticator coincides with the holocene era of 10,000 years ago.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are the matrilineal and patrilineal most common recent ancestors for all living humans today, using genetic markers and molecular clocks to trace genetic variations back in time. Nuclear DNA is subject to variation, whilst the mitochondrial DNA of the ovum is relatively stable and the mutation rate on the Y-chromosome is relatively constant.
Mitochondrial Eve so is said to have lived about 140,000 years ago near Ethiopia in Africa.
Y-chromosomal Adam is said to be at least 30,000 years younger than Mitochondrial Eve and perhaps only 60,000 years old and also from Africa.
The oldest homo sapiens fossil dates to 160,000 years ago and as classified by the Herto find of 2003. It is also said, that the Neanderthals split from a common ancestry with the Homo sapiens genus about 300,000 years ago and that the genetic evidence points to a Homo Sapiens origin in the African savannah so 200,000 years ago.

The Mayan understanding now relates the evolutionary leap from Homo Sapiens from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens or 'Wise Man' to FIVE Great Ages and given in the recent precessional supercycle.

133,000 years become 129,600=5x25,920 Platonic Cycles using a precessional average of 1 degree per 72 years.

Twelve Platonic Cycles are 311,040 years and 311,040 years ago the DNA-architecture of what was to evolve into Modern Man became INDUCTED by what is mythologically called 'Lemurian Root-Soul-Energy' and also as the 'giants' and the 'Sons of God' impregnating the 'Daughters of Man', say as in your Genesis encodings Genesis.6.2-4.
You might now understand that this encoding describes something before the Noahic 'Great Flood' and something after the 'perfect ten Noahic generations' redefined the 'Age of Man' as 120 years from a previous 'longer lived' generation and bounded by Methuselah's 969 years as the 'oldest man' who ever lived.

So now some of you may understand the archetype of the 'Great Flood' as the nexus point in the human history, when a previous hominoid evolution became terminated and replaced with a new one.
The previous hominoid generation was Homo Erectus culminating in the Lemurian archetype and then continuing in a multifaceted fashion with concurrent homninoids like Homo Neanderthalensis and 'great apes' like Gigantopithecus and after having itself evolved from Homo Habilis and Australopithecine ancestors dating back so 12 Grand Cycles earlier to 12x311,040=3,732,480 years.
This then is the reason as to why the Gaian anthropologists date the emergence of the Australopithecine human ancestry to about 4 Million years -13 Grand Cycles are 4,043,520 years.

The Solar System was created 5 Billion years ago and it took until 130,000 years ago to evolve Modern Man from Gaia's primeval and elemental beginnings.
The Mayan so manipulates the archetypical matrix of time to specify the first Platonic cycle as the reformation of a cosmic identity in utitility of the 10 principalities of the cosmogenesis applicable to the univere and all its substructures, such as a planetary evolvement in self-consciousness.

Application of the 10th principle metamorphoses the Old Identity as the 1st principle into a New Identity using the 9 Timelords as the means for this transformation.

So the Maya calls the first Platonic cycle the Age of Capricorn, thus labeling the 10th element of a zodiacal identity as rootreduction 10=1+0=1 and as mapped in the starry constellations of the Mazzaroth and of the ancient understandings.

The Platonic Age of Capricorn so began, when historical man Homo Sapiens differentiated from his environment and first became 'different' from its homo relatives, like Homo Neanderthalensis.

This and all other Platonic cycles can then be compared to similar 'Great Years' such as the Yugas in the Hinduistic reckonings.

The Satya Yuga as the Spiritual Age of Gold and of Meditation (Dhyana) lasts 4800 years in descent and is followed by the Treta Yuga as the Mental Age of Silver and of Sacrifice (Yajna), lasting 3600 years in descent.
The Dvapara Yuga as the Emotional Age of Bronze and of Worship (Archana) lasts 2400 years in descent and is followed by the Kali Yuga as the Physical Age of Iron and of Alms (Daana), lasting 1200 years in descent into Materialism, before ascending again for a similar period of time.
The overall descent from Spiritual Understanding to Materialistic Knowledge so becomes 12,000 years followed by a matching ascent from the physical to the spiritual rebirth.

The 'Day of Brahman' is said to be about 1017 seconds, which is the Age of the Universe, 6x1017 seconds being 20 billion years.
The 'Age of Brahman' then relates this age of physical cosmic existence to spiritual preexistence in the factor 1022/1017=105 and where the light invariance c=wavelengthxfrequency specifies this factor in the inversion constant 1/c=1022/(3x1030)=1022x(3.33x10-31)=3.33x10-9 and so as 1022=Inverse Timeinstanton/c=Source-Frequency/c as the 'Age of Brahman'.

Question 8

a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era.

Do you concur with this?

Yes.

b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments.

Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view?

The Mayan master timeline spans five great cycles of longcounts; each longcount being comprised of 13 baktuns, each baktun encompassing 144,000 kin or days,and as 20 katuns of 7,200 kin each.

It is the 65th and final baktun, which defines the 'birth of the starhuman' archetype to replace the older 'human' archetype initiated 5x13x144,000 kin or 9,360,000 days before the nexus date of December 21st, 2012.

As the sun's angular diameter is about 0.53 degrees, the Maya calculated the ending of their longcount in the last cycle of the winter-summer solstices as a function of the Mayan Precessional 'Great Platonic Year' of 25,626.81 kin (or civil Gregorian days).
A precessional degree then becomes 9,360,000/360=26,000=71.1856.x365.2425 days and so in the Mayan kin count, 71.1856 civil years specify a 1-degree precession and the galactic synchronisation at the winter solstice will be 71.1856x0.53=37.728 civil years for the solar transit across the galactic centre.

The Maya obtained the longcount from the 'hermetic' tradition (of the Plumed Serpent Melchizedek) of Kukulkan (or Quetzalcoatl in the Aztec parallel) and this 'prophecy' relates directly to a scripturally encoded 'day count' of 12,000+1,600=13,600 days in a 'furlong' count of measuring the 'inside' and the 'outside' of the 'great city' {John.2.21;Revelation.11.1-2;14.20;21.16} as the 'Temple of God'.
These 13,600 days from December 21st, 2012 will specify September 12th, 1975 as the beginning of the 37.728 civil year period of 13,780 days, then ending 180 days after that date on June 19-21, 2013, which is the following summer solstice in the 21-23 December, 2012 variation.
The midpoint is 18.864 civil years from either end and pinpoints 6,890 days from September 12th, 1975 on 24th July 1994.
The 'Beginning of the 'Age of Aquarius' is then scripturally determined within the last of the 20 katuns of 7,200 days or 19.713 civil years beginning on this April 5th, 1993 (20 civil years as 20x365+5=7,200+105 days and ending on April 6th, 2013.
This shall be further detailed in the timeline agenda, but engages the 105 days of 'Noah's daycount' (in Genesis) from the sending of the Raven of the Tarrying and the Dove of Peace to the Rainbow Covenant.

The 'Beginning of the Age of Aquarius' and as a 'Lower Bound' so is dated to the 'transition of the Sun from Capricorn into Aquarius on January 20th, 1998 and an exit from Aquarius on February 18th, 1998 and as 3.5 years from the midpoint date to specify a 7-year period archetypically characterising the galactic synchronisation scripturally and prophetically.
July 24th, 1994 plus 3.5x360=7x180=1260 days for January 5th, 1998 and a date to which are added 15 days as the encoded 'hour of the beast' in the proportion 1 day/24 hours=360days/15days and the dayyears encoded in Ezekiel.
This 'addition' then becomes 'natural' in the Gregorian calendar of 365.2425 days as compared to the Ancient calendar of 360 days in the 18 days as the differential between the two calendars (360x3.5+18=365x3.5+0.5) and the halfweek addition/subtraction of 3.5 days (see timeline agenda).
The 'Upper Bound' for the 'Beginning of the Age of Aquarius' must so engage the solar transit from Aquarius into Pisces in a mirror image for the 'Lower Bound' situated at the midpoint of the center of February 3rd, 2005 to assign this 'Upper Bound' the civil date February 19th, 2012 and so a 14-year superposition (2x7=14 proportionalises 2x18.864=37.728) for the 'Aquarian Transit' from 1998 to 2012 and as the galactic synchronisation of the galactic center 'Hunab Ku' with the Sun 'RahSol'.

Overall however, in the Mayan longcount September18th,1618 began this last baktun of 144,000 days. This is 25 years and 108 days or 9,239 kin before the birth of Isaac Newton on January 4th, 1643 as the onset of the 'Age of Reasoning' and science-based Enlightenment in the scientific methodology and a 'Renaissance of Rationality', say as instigated by Galileo Galilei (February15th,1564-January 8th,1642).

It would be this 'last' baktun or a 395-year period from 1618 to 2013, which would refine and finetune the human reasoning mind to gather enough data to 'finally' allow a full remembrance of its UnTimed collective reality in nospacetime and where 391 years from 1618 define the Year of the beginning manifestation for the 'Trial of Humanity' in 1618+391=2009.

c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019?

Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special?

Yes, additionally to the above; the timeline in the Great Pyramid also (from the so called Great Step) also points to the 2012/2013 period and most important from the Thuban perspective, the prophetic timelines in the Logos descriptive 'scriptures' converge and synthesize in a precise daycount of 1600 from August 4th, 2008 to December 21st, 2012.

d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment?

See above. The 'Age of Aquarius' can be said to begin January 20th, 1998 in the solar transit from Capricorn into Aquarius.

Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here?

The 'Great prophetic timeline' began September 12th, 1975 and ends August 4th, 2013 for a 'weaning' of the StarHuman Baby, born on the Mayan solstice date.

Question 9

Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy.

This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it.

From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years.

However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/idiot.html - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507655.pdf ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane.

Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane.

It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe.

It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is?

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same?

When the universe was 236.5 million years old at a cosmological redshift of 7.477; the universe was the scale of what today is known as a galactic suprcluster. A galactic supercluster has so a diameter of so 473 million lightyears and represents the gravitational interaction limit.
The Copernican Principle of Cosmology states, that the universe beyond this boundary scale will be isotripic and homogenous (looking the same in all directions and having the same texture or pixel structure say).

A massless universe can be described as a Mother-Black Hole with a curvature radius of 16.9 billion lightyears and so the Daughter-Black Hole of radius 236.5 million lightyears as a supercluster Black Hole equivalent willso carry 'missing mass' and 'dark energy' (actually a form of stationary 'auric' lightmatrix as a 'space filling' consciousness).

So to close the universe as a selfcontained unity, the massless mother BH interacts with the inertial daughter carrying the entire mass-seed of the creation (Big Bang) within it and characterizing the 236.5 million year marker.

This marker so is a template or blueprint for the later much expanded universe and holofractalises again in galactic subsystems from supercluster to group to galaxy to starsystem to platery system to continents etc. etc.

In particular the gravity bound holographs itself in a template galaxy like the MWG in the solar systems orbit fractalising the Period of the orbit as the cosmic time of the manifestation of the 'master template'. So period T=1/f=2pi/w=236.5 million years.

To give specific values for galactic parameters is unwarranted in the deeper sense, as the galaxies supplement their baryonic luminous parameters with nonluminous 'consciousness energy' or 'haloes'. So for example the MWG halo interacts peripherally with the halo of Andromeda, its approaching sister galaxy so 2.6 million lightyears away. Generally, the MWG is 100,000 lightyears across and 1,000 lightyears thick in the luminosity and the distance between the galactic center and the Sun is 9,360,000 lightdays as defined by the present precessional cycle.

Question 10

It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band.

This reference, http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy.

So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone?

Atlas-Pleione-Alcyone-.. are labels for a very potent archetype for the Seven Sisters. This archetype is a hologram which can be mapped and mirrored onto any consciousness able to acknowledge the manifesto of this symbol, say as the Pleiades. The photon-belt so is NOT a 3D physical phenomenon, but a consciousness, defined in the gauge physics of the coupling between the light parameters and the inertia parameters. We term it the RestMassPhoton or RMP as the 'Particle of Consciousness'.
Then the 'photion belt' energy is real in a 4D sense in terms of said RMPs, but is not in any way some physical or electromagnetic field interacting with rotating dynamical systems of astrophysics.

The Seven Sisters so can easily 'energize'; seven continents or seven oceans or seven chakras or seven somethings upon Gaia or any other place 'consciously' energized by RMPs.

Question 11

What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy?

This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030924.html), by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG.

However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423 and http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system.

I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG?

Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...nother-galaxy/).

Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system?

Just as the MWG is a template galaxy, so is the local Rahsol starsystem a blueprint Star System so is Gaia a template Planetary-Moon System. They are all holograms of each other and all have formed from the Galactic nebula labeled the MWG.

Final Comment

That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me.

It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to.

Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us.

Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer!

I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false.

Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker (Andrew)

Yes, I agree with your final comment and thank you for your efforts of asking such detailed questions, which I have tried to answer in similar style.

AA

Phtha · 01-28-2010, 06:29 AM

Fascinating discourse that was!

I have a question about the various 'ages of enlightenment'. Using the Yugas as an example, what would be the cause or the mechanism that changes our 'levels of awareness' so to speak. Was this hard coded within our dna? Or is it due to some sort of Solar or cosmic rayes that effect the mass consciousness? Or perhaps it is more of a 'mundane' reason such as the suppression of knowledge? Obviously on a broader scale it is due to a Divine plan, but I'm just curious as to what the physical mechanism is to carry it out.

And for a somewhat unrelated question, I'm just curious about 5500 year time frame mentioned in the First Book of Adam and Eve from the Apocrypha, as God said this would be the duration of the Fall into matter from the Garden of Eden. Is this based on a cycle of some sort?

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

The Satya Yuga as the Spiritual Age of Gold and of Meditation (Dhyana) lasts 4800 years in descent and is followed by the Treta Yuga as the Mental Age of Silver and of Sacrifice (Yajna), lasting 3600 years in descent.
The Dvapara Yuga as the Emotional Age of Bronze and of Worship (Archana) lasts 2400 years in descent and is followed by the Kali Yuga as the Physical Age of Iron and of Alms (Daana), lasting 1200 years in descent into Materialism, before ascending again for a similar period of time.
The overall descent from Spiritual Understanding to Materialistic Knowledge so becomes 12,000 years followed by a matching ascent from the physical to the spiritual rebirth.

The 'Day of Brahman' is said to be about 1017 seconds, which is the Age of the Universe, 6x1017 seconds being 20 billion years.
The 'Age of Brahman' then relates this age of physical cosmic existence to spiritual preexistence in the factor 1022/1017=105 and where the light invariance c=wavelengthxfrequency specifies this factor in the inversion constant 1/c=1022/(3x1030)=1022x(3.33x10-31)=3.33x10-9 and so as 1022=Inverse Timeinstanton/c=Source-Frequency/c as the 'Age of Brahman'.

abraxasinas · 01-28-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phtha

Fascinating discourse that was!

I have a question about the various 'ages of enlightenment'. Using the Yugas as an example, what would be the cause or the mechanism that changes our 'levels of awareness' so to speak. Was this hard coded within our dna? Or is it due to some sort of Solar or cosmic rayes that effect the mass consciousness? Or perhaps it is more of a 'mundane' reason such as the suppression of knowledge? Obviously on a broader scale it is due to a Divine plan, but I'm just curious as to what the physical mechanism is to carry it out.

And for a somewhat unrelated question, I'm just curious about 5500 year time frame mentioned in the First Book of Adam and Eve from the Apocrypha, as God said this would be the duration of the Fall into matter from the Garden of Eden. Is this based on a cycle of some sort?

Hi Phtah!

To both of your question I have no specific answer, as the reply you are addressing is not Thuban data as say a revision of basic semiotiks, but are simple statements of the common translation of the archetypes by particular and incomplete schools of philosophy (the labels of the Yugas and the apocrypha).

Iow, your take on these data bases are as valid as anything I could assess in alaysis under the criteria of the said material under its own parameters.

Generally so, there are no'rays of enlightenment' from the cosmos or such - there is consciousness activating from a 'hidden library' within. Therefore the 'rays of enlightement' also derive from within and not from without.
Data like the Yuga data or the Thuban data can serve as a trigger for remembrances of the 'data from within' and nothing more.

AA

Phtha · 01-29-2010, 11:21 PM

Cheers Sirebard.

A sweet paradox.
Search without' to find within'
To learn within' is all without'

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Hi Phtah!

Generally so, there are no'rays of enlightenment' from the cosmos or such - there is consciousness activating from a 'hidden library' within. Therefore the 'rays of enlightement' also derive from within and not from without.
Data like the Yuga data or the Thuban data can serve as a trigger for remembrances of the 'data from within' and nothing more.

AA

Firstlook · 01-29-2010, 11:54 PM

Abraxas,

How are you? I want a great answer for that question.

I thought this might be something interesting:

Tonight is the "wolf" moon.

Quote:

The moon is, on average, 238,855 miles (384,400 km) from Earth. The moon's orbit around Earth – which causes it to go through all its phases once every 29.5 days – is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse. One side of the orbit is 31,070 miles (50,000 km) closer than the other.

So in each orbit, the moon reaches this closest point to us, called perigee. Once or twice a year, perigee coincides with a full moon, as it will tonight, making the moon bigger and brighter than any other full moons during the year.

What would you recommend for our minds to understand this relation better, in light of this closeness?

Our there relations within ourselves that would benefit and help others within this night especially?

Also:

Quote:

The moon illusion

Finally, be sure to get out and see the full moon as it rises, right around sunset. Along the horizon, the moon tends to seem even bigger. This is just an illusion.

You can prove to yourself that this is an illusion. Taking a small object such as a pencil eraser, hold it at arm's length, and compare its size to that of the moon just as it rises. Then repeat the experiment later in the night and you'll see that the moon compares the same in both cases. Alternately, snap two photos of the moon, with a digital camera or your cell phone, when the moon is near the horizon and later when it's higher in the sky. Pull both photos up on your computer screen and make a side-by-side comparison.

Astronomers and psychologists agree the moon illusion is just that, but they don't agree on how to explain it.

Could you ask Thuban about this little "illusion".

I thought it would be silly to ask such a light question at first, but every little thing is what you make it.

Hey thanks Abraxas. Its really great the time you spend here on the forum with the rest of us. I hope you are enjoying from this what you can.

peace

abraxasinas · 01-30-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firstlook

Abraxas,

How are you? I want a great answer for that question.

I thought this might be something interesting:

Tonight is the "wolf" moon.

What would you recommend for our minds to understand this relation better, in light of this closeness?

Our there relations within ourselves that would benefit and help others within this night especially?

Also:

Could you ask Thuban about this little "illusion".

I thought it would be silly to ask such a light question at first, but every little thing is what you make it.

Hey thanks Abraxas. Its really great the time you spend here on the forum with the rest of us. I hope you are enjoying from this what you can.

peace

Dear firstlook!

If the sun is overhead at noon, it appears smaller against a cyan coloured sky and when the sun is setting, it appears bigger against a reddening sky.

There is more light scattering in the evening because the sun is 'cooler' and 'dimmer' in that less sunlight penetrates the atmosphere. The sunlight must travel further in the apparent orbit of the sun around the sky.
This orbit will increase the ARCLENGTH of the angular chord subtended at the reception point of the sunlight (your eye and retina), compared to the ARCLENGTH subtended or projected where the sun diretly overhead.

This so allows more red light frequencies to get through the atmosphere than the midday sun, which absorbs the red frequencies by gas particles and scatters only the blue frequencies (red light is less energetic than blue light and defined by frequencies).

The MOON reflects the sunlight and so describes the same atmospheric physics and optics as a Mirror.

The closeness of the Moon so becomes the 'greater arclength' projection in addition to 'optical illusions' like Oculomotor micropsia and macropsia . Here is a reference:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/moonillu.htm

For a more technical description of the Moon's ACTUAL apogee-perigee sizes consult the link:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html

AA

Firstlook · 01-30-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Dear firstlook!

If the sun is overhead at noon, it appears smaller against a cyan coloured sky and when the sun is setting, it appears bigger against a reddening sky.

There is more light scattering in the evening because the sun is 'cooler' and 'dimmer' in that less sunlight penetrates the atmosphere. The sunlight must travel further in the apparent orbit of the sun around the sky.
This orbit will increase the ARCLENGTH of the angular chord subtended at the reception point of the sunlight (your eye and retina), compared to the ARCLENGTH subtended or projected where the sun diretly overhead.

This so allows more red light frequencies to get through the atmosphere than the midday sun, which absorbs the red frequencies by gas particles and scatters only the blue frequencies (red light is less energetic than blue light and defined by frequencies).

The MOON reflects the sunlight and so describes the same atmospheric physics and optics as a Mirror.

The closeness of the Moon so becomes the 'greater arclength' projection in addition to 'optical illusions' like Oculomotor micropsia and macropsia . Here is a reference:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/moonillu.htm

For a more technical description of the Moon's ACTUAL apogee-perigee sizes consult the link:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html

AA

Thankyou.

halebox · 01-30-2010, 12:19 AM

What are the effects of cell towers on humans? How close is too close?

What can orgone be used for?

You mentioned the darkworkers are actually lightworkers as they have their purpose and are part of the balance. This is really hard to digest but Im starting to get this and I feel some people will never go to the light no matter how hard you try. So the darkworkers who influence these souls are in a sense making sure that all around me are of similar intent if I make it to 4D this time around. At the same time fulfilling their agenda.
I will keep full force ahead in my mission but at some point beyond my control the door closes for the followers. I did my best. Its a very odd sense of relief knowing that negative forces influencing people who have their own will to choose the dark side is at some point is out of my control but yet is all ok and will always be this way. wow

Thuban view on eating meat?

So earth humans ascending will become Starhuman then become Dragons?
Those who stay in 3D eventually become the Greys?

Are emotions a 3D trait?

Describe visually the Pleadian race.

Describe visually the Arcturian race.

Describe visually the Sirian race.

Describe visually the Andromedan race.

Name race and planet not discovered or mentioned yet on our internet.

What is the effect of an abortion to all involved.

Thank you Council of Thuban via Abaraxas

abraxasinas · 01-30-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halebox

What are the effects of cell towers on humans? How close is too close?

Dear halebox!

What is the effect of alcohol on humans? How much is too much?

Cell phones exist and alcohol exist. Nothing exists in isolation relative to the whole. When a new technology or 'drug' becomes available, then many of the consequences of the then novelty remain comparatively unknown, until some time has allowed for 'Nature' to adopt to this new environmental interactions.
The laboratory fabricated AIDS virus took about a decade to be processed by 'nature' and only then would HIV positive mothers be enabled to give birth to HIV negative babies.

The below reference might give you more information.

http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm

What can orgone be used for?

Orgone is Chi is Prana is the 'Holy Spirit' is the lifeforce, coupled to the ZPE and so ubiquitous. It's usage is basically an individuated resonance physics and not accessible for technological utility until the human groupconsciousness has evolved to 'tap' the ZPE.

You mentioned the darkworkers are actually lightworkers as they have their purpose and are part of the balance. This is really hard to digest but Im starting to get this and I feel some people will never go to the light no matter how hard you try. So the darkworkers who influence these souls are in a sense making sure that all around me are of similar intent if I make it to 4D this time around. At the same time fulfilling their agenda.
I will keep full force ahead in my mission but at some point beyond my control the door closes for the followers. I did my best. Its a very odd sense of relief knowing that negative forces influencing people who have their own will to choose the dark side is at some point is out of my control but yet is all ok and will always be this way. wow

It is 'good' that you are beginning to 'get this'. You should also try to understand that the 'darkness' is restricted to say 5th density in dichotomized (twofold polarity) expression and will beautifully coexist in complementary fashion with the 'light' in the higher densities.
The 'light' is as one with the 'darkness' in a MODULAR DUALITY allowing the macrocosm of say galactic supercluster scales to BE in Holographic Unification with the microcosm of wormhole singularities.

So the 'dark ones' perceived in 3D to 5D are or will be unified in the 'higher perpectives'. As you have or beginning to find out for yourself; the 'negative ones' are helping the 'bigger plan' to bring about maximum polarization for the universal transformation to occur.

Thuban view on eating meat?

This is a VERY VERY important question halebox and I shall spend some time on it after thanking you for asking this question.

The human body is a biochemical reactor, which has evolved for so 2.2 billion years in a feedback mechanism between itself and its environment.
The least self-conscious way to GAIN and grow in consciousbness was to EAT ones environment, say in the form of a Caterpillar, preparing for its pupasation and transformation into a pollinating and so food-giving butterfly.
When you eat an apple, the ;ifeforce of the apple blends its apple-consciousness with your human consciousness and you attain apple consciousness.
So on some faraway planet, where apple-intelligences reside, this apple-sentience receives data from the human consciousness by this mirroring of consciousnesses.

If the human does not eat a ripened apple, ready to fall of the apple tree; then the worms or birds or beetles of the ground will consume the apple consciousness in a similar cosmic interaction.
Alternatively, the oxygen in the air and so the elements will disintegrate and disperse the apple consciousness.

This analgy is applied to the present humanity, literally eating itself via its enviroment as a remnant of its nature as a biochemical reactor.

The Starhuman will no longer be required to 'eat' like a caterpillar, but will 'eat' like a butterfly in a mutual beneficial environmental feedback system.

If the 'wild animals' upon Gaia would have no more need to hunt and eat each other, then all so called exploitative human-alien interaction would cease also.

So fundamentally, KNOW that YOU are eating an alien, when YOU are eating your steak or your piece of bread or a carrot or a peanut or a fish.

Of course eating the peanut or the apple or the wheat is different from eating 'dead meat', as the apple from the apple tree regrows as produce from the roots of the tree from below and nourished also from the sunlight from above.
Eating a carrot is somewhat different than eating a chicken, but nevertheless requires the 'killing' of the carrot.
But ask yourself. What happens to the carrot should you not eat it and what happensd to the chicken should it not be eaten?

The carrot would become fertilizer for its next recycling in consciousness, either agan as a carrot or as some other consciousness via its own 'composting'.
Similarly, the chicken would get old and die and become 'recycled'.

This is the Agony of the entire Creation'.

Romans 8:21-23 (King James Version)

21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

It so is the CORRUPTION of the Biochemical reactor, requiring food, which is at THE CORE of the 'agony of the universe'.

So when the fox eats the chicken, the chicken becomes part of the fox and when the human eats the chicken, the chicken becomes part of the human. This is the NATURAL LAW implemented and executed in AGONY by the Creation Herself.

When the perception of the Draconian Reptilian eating a human enters the consciousness of the human groupmind, then this is not so different from a Tyrannosaurus Rex eating a human (Jurassic Park movie) or a Shark or Alligator eating a human. The same Natural Law has applied.

The 'Natural Agony' will subside once the 'New Natural Order' has been born.

Isaiah 11:6
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isaiah 11:7
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Finally, the Thuban perspective of consuming anything is this.

If you decide to eat a killed animal, then KNOW and UNDERSTAND where the 'meat' is coming from. Imagine the living cow and the living fishand the living carrot before you consume its old 'container' and acknowledge your kinship with what you so consume.
KNOW that you are eating the 'life memories' of the bodyform you are consuming (Not its soul) in a blending of your consciousness with It.

There is NO judgement about you choosing what to eat.
To be carniverous demands of you to acknowledge the killing of roaming animals to feed you.
To be a vegan demands of you to acknowledge the killing of growing and living vegetables.
If you would not eat 'animal flesh', then the animal would either not exist in bodyform in having been bred or in dying of old age or disease. (So you might perceive the utter significance of PETS as human companions).
If you would not eat 'vegetable flesh', then the plantform would either not exist in bodyform in having been planted or it would recycle as compost to further the CONSCIOUSNESS Evolvement of the collective in holographic dispersions.

Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

So earth humans ascending will become Starhuman then become Dragons?
Those who stay in 3D eventually become the Greys?

No, the Greys are linked to Insectoid-Hive groupconsciousness of the collective and the Humans are programmed to become the Mirror of Mirrors within the universe in the Human+Dragon=StarHuman definition of the Logos.

Are emotions a 3D trait?

Yes, the BASE emotionality is 3D upon which the higherD emotionalities MUST be built as a Seedling Energy connecting the so called Physicality with the so called Mentality.

Describe visually the Pleadian race.

Human Consciousness blended with Cetacean Consciousness.

Describe visually the Arcturian race.

Human Consciousness blended with Pachydermian Consciousness.

Describe visually the Sirian race.

Human Consciousness blended with Canine Consciousness.

Describe visually the Andromedan race.

Human Consciousness blended with Feline Consciousness.

Name race and planet not discovered or mentioned yet on our internet.

Akbar Ra in the Sirian starsystem.

What is the effect of an abortion to all involved.

The soul enters the physicality upon conception and following a choosing in the NoSpaceTime about the environmental factors likely to be encountered.
So the possibility of being aborted is assessed before incarnation. A 'wished for' pregnancy so carries much less probability for abortion, then impregnation of a teenager.

Nevertheless all abortion procedures attach the experience of allowing and experiencing the abortion in the superconsciousness of the interacting souls (including the father).
The superconsciousness then inducts the subconscious inducts the waking consciousness with emotions, feelings and thoughts, subject to processing by the Heart-Mind coupling say. To switch polarity of the Thinking rationalising mind with the Feeling emotional heart so often becomes a 'self-enforcing' issue to process feelings of guilt, suicide, despair and indifferences.

Thank you Council of Thuban via Abaraxas

AA

Phtha · 02-03-2010, 12:16 AM

This is a great post dear Sirebard, thanks! A lot of this I have come to realize myself from fasting and experimenting with various types of diets... although I never thought to consider that many of these 'food consciousnesses' might be originating from some far away source..

Do bananas come from Venus?
Can you list some of the more popular fruits and veggies... and their origins?

I also found your posts about animals very interesting. Being a long time cat owner myself I couldn't help but notice in Avatar that the race from pandora was based off of Felinaes.
Where are mice from? They way lab rats are treated... The must have a real beef to pick with us. As well as all those other 'farmed' animals

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Thuban view on eating meat?

This is a VERY VERY important question halebox and I shall spend some time on it after thanking you for asking this question.

The human body is a biochemical reactor, which has evolved for so 2.2 billion years in a feedback mechanism between itself and its environment.
The least self-conscious way to GAIN and grow in consciousbness was to EAT ones environment, say in the form of a Caterpillar, preparing for its pupasation and transformation into a pollinating and so food-giving butterfly.
When you eat an apple, the ;ifeforce of the apple blends its apple-consciousness with your human consciousness and you attain apple consciousness.
So on some faraway planet, where apple-intelligences reside, this apple-sentience receives data from the human consciousness by this mirroring of consciousnesses.

If the human does not eat a ripened apple, ready to fall of the apple tree; then the worms or birds or beetles of the ground will consume the apple consciousness in a similar cosmic interaction.
Alternatively, the oxygen in the air and so the elements will disintegrate and disperse the apple consciousness.

This analgy is applied to the present humanity, literally eating itself via its enviroment as a remnant of its nature as a biochemical reactor.

The Starhuman will no longer be required to 'eat' like a caterpillar, but will 'eat' like a butterfly in a mutual beneficial environmental feedback system.

If the 'wild animals' upon Gaia would have no more need to hunt and eat each other, then all so called exploitative human-alien interaction would cease also.

So fundamentally, KNOW that YOU are eating an alien, when YOU are eating your steak or your piece of bread or a carrot or a peanut or a fish.

Of course eating the peanut or the apple or the wheat is different from eating 'dead meat', as the apple from the apple tree regrows as produce from the roots of the tree from below and nourished also from the sunlight from above.
Eating a carrot is somewhat different than eating a chicken, but nevertheless requires the 'killing' of the carrot.
But ask yourself. What happens to the carrot should you not eat it and what happensd to the chicken should it not be eaten?

The carrot would become fertilizer for its next recycling in consciousness, either agan as a carrot or as some other consciousness via its own 'composting'.
Similarly, the chicken would get old and die and become 'recycled'.

This is the Agony of the entire Creation'.

AA

hippihillbobbi · 02-03-2010, 01:33 AM

here's the link for the "Book of the Dragons" ...... it's really pretty interesting.

http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id106.html

i'd love to discuss this with some of ya'll -- it's a bit heavy, as i said earlier to Abraxas. i'd love to read what ya'll think!

hippihill

Initiate · 02-03-2010, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippihillbobbi

here's the link for the "Book of the Dragons" ...... it's really pretty interesting.

http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id106.html

i'd love to discuss this with some of ya'll -- it's a bit heavy, as i said earlier to Abraxas. i'd love to read what ya'll think!

hippihill

Propagation of the Dragonian Race via the seductive induction of the humanoid lifeforms on the conquered planet New Earth, now renamed DRAGONIAEARTH=SERPENTlNA=121=Q5.

On the face of it do we really want to be a conquered race after Gaia ascends? Are we or have we been seduced? It sounds like earth is being set up as a Sink (Black Hole) to swallow the rest of the solar system.

The fact is Humanity should take it's lead directly from the Creator. No Go betweens or fantasy stories that fit the Logos. Just because it fits doesn't mean it is reality. We choose our reality or we have it chosen for us.

Regards,

Initiate.

Phtha · 02-03-2010, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Initiate

On the face of it do we really want to be a conquered race after Gaia ascends? Are we or have we been seduced? It sounds like earth is being set up as a Sink (Black Hole) to swallow the rest of the solar system.

I have a feeling that our friend Sirebard is helping us play out an ancient myth (on a more cosmic scale) or some form of online initiation...

Passenger · 02-03-2010, 07:34 AM

Greetings Abraxas,

This is some thread you have here... i feel that i have journeyed
through all of the dimensions at once as i read the 42 pages and
it is still going strong. Some rough bits there earlier on with
the Dragon Slayers but balance has been restored - mirror mirror
on the wall... gives a whole new perspective of the verses -
'judge not lest you be judged'. There is magic here.

You mention that the 4th dimension will inherit the 3rd dimension.
Or at least all that is ready for ascension/harvest.
Is 4D not just a mental/astral plain full of assorted beings with
a lot of baggage/issues and like to play games with entities on
the 3D plain. Is this also not where the Magi go to do the same.

If so then how will this 3D+4D=New World co-exist with the present
and quite often insane group from the current 4D occupants?
It will take some time to get used to the form and the formless
in a natural co-existence... assuming i have any of this correct
at all.

BTW - i have been seeing a swiss cheese reality for some time now.
With - 'so it seems' - different parts of my vision in different
realities of completely different matter. Some parts fade in and out
and sometimes other parts become malleable or like liquid. Happens
more and more often now.

Which brings me to another question... if the gates are already open
then are there already some ascended 'StarHumans' in the New World ?
Acting as the ground crew for the oncoming 4D newbies. The greeting
party as it were.

Thanks for the inspiration you have given me to better understand
my understanding.

-P

abraxasinas · 02-04-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passenger

Greetings Abraxas,

This is some thread you have here... i feel that i have journeyed
through all of the dimensions at once as i read the 42 pages and
it is still going strong. Some rough bits there earlier on with
the Dragon Slayers but balance has been restored - mirror mirror
on the wall... gives a whole new perspective of the verses -
'judge not lest you be judged'. There is magic here.

66=THUBAN=FREEDOM=THE MAGIC=...indeed passenger.

You mention that the 4th dimension will inherit the 3rd dimension.
Or at least all that is ready for ascension/harvest.
Is 4D not just a mental/astral plain full of assorted beings with
a lot of baggage/issues and like to play games with entities on
the 3D plain. Is this also not where the Magi go to do the same.

Yes this is correct, the 4D AT PRESENT is the 'astral plane'. When the 4D is rendered 5D however, then this 'astral plane' is reconfigured as stated by many many 'New Agers' (Edgar Cayce and Sheldon Nile for one).

If so then how will this 3D+4D=New World co-exist with the present
and quite often insane group from the current 4D occupants?
It will take some time to get used to the form and the formless
in a natural co-existence... assuming i have any of this correct
at all.

As I have said many times before by now; the 3D is the Core for the 4D, like the kernel of a peach.
Now only the hard kernel exists, THEN this kernel will have a softer envelope. They will coexist, the 4D being however relatively 'invisible' for the ones not able to 'tune into in self-resonance'.

BTW - i have been seeing a swiss cheese reality for some time now.
With - 'so it seems' - different parts of my vision in different
realities of completely different matter. Some parts fade in and out
and sometimes other parts become malleable or like liquid. Happens
more and more often now.

There you are you are preparing yourself for the 3D-4D interaction on the collective scale through your selfinteraction on the individual scale.

Which brings me to another question... if the gates are already open
then are there already some ascended 'StarHumans' in the New World ?
Acting as the ground crew for the oncoming 4D newbies. The greeting
party as it were.

No stargates are as yet open on the earth and out to a distance of 2 million kilometers. The sun's stargates HAVE OPENED, as you can see by the photographic evidence posted on this forum and elsewhere.

Thanks for the inspiration you have given me to better understand
my understanding.

-P

You seem to be doing very well indeed passenger.

AA

abraxasinas · 02-04-2010, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Initiate

Propagation of the Dragonian Race via the seductive induction of the humanoid lifeforms on the conquered planet New Earth, now renamed DRAGONIAEARTH=SERPENTlNA=121=Q5.

On the face of it do we really want to be a conquered race after Gaia ascends? Are we or have we been seduced? It sounds like earth is being set up as a Sink (Black Hole) to swallow the rest of the solar system.

The fact is Humanity should take it's lead directly from the Creator. No Go betweens or fantasy stories that fit the Logos. Just because it fits doesn't mean it is reality. We choose our reality or we have it chosen for us.

Regards,
Initiate.

You do not understand Initiate.

Human+Dragon=StarHuman as the New Cosmic Man, realised from the Old Cosmic Man (Vitruvius aka Purusha aka Adam Kadmon aka You).

AA

Initiate · 02-04-2010, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

You do not understand Initiate.

Human+Dragon=StarHuman as the New Cosmic Man, realised from the Old Cosmic Man (Vitruvius aka Purusha aka Adam Kadmon aka You).

AA

Hi Abrax ,

Don't get me wrong. I get that. what I don't get is the need to be seduced and conquered. If this is truely mans destiny then we should not need to be seduced and conquered. This sounds like the Borg from star trek. What is the destiny of the white drogon. I have read the book "The White Drogon" by Anne McAffrey (not sure of spelling) but what is the destiny of the undragonised Human?

abraxasinas · 02-04-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Initiate

Hi Abrax ,

Don't get me wrong. I get that. what I don't get is the need to be seduced and conquered. If this is truely mans destiny then we should not need to be seduced and conquered. This sounds like the Borg from star trek. What is the destiny of the white drogon. I have read the book "The White Drogon" by Anne McAffrey (not sure of spelling) but what is the destiny of the undragonised Human?

Dear Initiate!

Should you read the part, which you commented on, of the essay again, then you will see there, that it is stated, that all 'nondragonised' humans are to be treated like 'White Dragon Children'.

Also, can you not fathom that the SEDUCTION of a Man (or a Woman) by another 'courtier' can be a highly desirable manouver?

We Thuban males LOVE to be SEDUCED by our sexual desirees. We Thubans LOVE to be conquered in such games.

There is more to words, than a stereoptypical interpretation of the semantics.

AA

Initiate · 02-04-2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Dear Initiate!

Should you read the part, which you commented on, of the essay again, then you will see there, that it is stated, that all 'nondragonised' humans are to be treated like 'White Dragon Children'.

Also, can you not fathom that the SEDUCTION of a Man (or a Woman) by another 'courtier' can be a highly desirable manouver?

We Thuban males LOVE to be SEDUCED by our sexual desirees. We Thubans LOVE to be conquered in such games.

There is more to words, than a stereoptypical interpretation of the semantics.

AA

I have read that part dear abrax.

How do you treat your white dragon children? I want to know more please. Hence the reason for the question. Please don't take these questions as an attack. They are just exploratory

01-27-2010, 08:12 AM	#1
berathebrain Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 13	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) Hi Abraxas. I have always wondered how in the world does the Rodin coil achieves the effects it achieves. Like making a monopole magnet out of a steel bar when a pulsed direct current is running through the coil. Also, there is this video with Rodin himself, Nassim Haramein and a guy named James (I think that is his name), where James shows how to make a speaker out of a Rodin coil and permanent magnet. What is producing the sound here? Also, could this coil have something to do with free energy? Have you heard of Steven Mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvLuQOKOVXQ and his motionless generator, where he somehow draws the energy from the vacuum or from all the electromagnetic frequencies that bombards the Earth all the time. Anyway, I was interested is that some kind of a hoax or it could really be done? Thank you for your patience with this questions.

01-27-2010, 02:19 PM	#2
truthseeker Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Near Halifax, W. Yorks, England Posts: 26	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) Hi Abraxasinas, Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians). I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum). So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: - Question 1 Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm plus this beautiful video, http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...90301316220374 from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true. The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories? Question 2 The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here, http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events. If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that. For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website (http://www.etheric.com/) or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website? So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective? Question 3 Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star. Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see http://alignment2012.com/ plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun? Question 4 a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar? b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)? c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle? d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation? Question 5 What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession. Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time. Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time? Question 6 My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon. The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question? Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation. Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement? Question 7 The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.). He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory. However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga. John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle? Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: - “The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik**, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.” So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE. So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system. Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle. So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent? Question 8 a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era. Do you concur with this? b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments. Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view? c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019? Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special? d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment? Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here? Question 9 Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy. This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it. From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years. However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/idiot.html - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507655.pdf ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane. Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane. It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe. It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is? So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same? Question 10 It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band. This reference, http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy. So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone? Question 11 What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy? This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030924.html), by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG. However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423 and http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system. I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG? Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...nother-galaxy/). Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system? Final Comment That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me. It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to. Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us. Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer! I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false. Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions. Best Wishes Truthseeker (Andrew)

01-27-2010, 02:37 PM	#3
Firstlook Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 161	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) To the above post: Awesome.

01-27-2010, 02:59 PM	#5
hippihillbobbi Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA Posts: 120	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) Abraxas -- Thanks for your answers to my last questions ..... and for all your Other Answers to us all as well! New questions: 1) What do you mean exactly by the following, "Humanity is the focus point of the entire universal evolvement, not just galactic, not just supergalactic, but universal." ? Does this have anything to do with "the whole only being as strong as its weakest part?" Or the fact that this earth/consciousness-shift has been planned for so long by the Logos? 2) Since the concept of time is "illusionary," does this imply that polarity (good-bad, etc) exists throughout eternity? 3) Will every soul eventually be reunited with its source .... and if so, what do people mean when they say things like, "they will return to their source as space dust", seeming to imply an inferior state to other ways-of-being "joined to the Creator"? 4) Is John, the "beloved disciple," truly the author of Revelations? Many thanks, AA! hippihill

01-27-2010, 09:22 PM	#7
abraxasinas _ Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Queanbeyan/Canberra; NSW, Australia Posts: 635	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) Hi Abraxasinas, Thanks for this fascinating thread. I can not claim to understand all the physics and mathematics that you have here presented, as I am no scientist myself, though I do sense some truth here in what you write and say. Whilst not a scientist myself, I have a great fascination with true science, as opposed to the scientism or pseudoscience that is so often presented as the real thing by many mainstream scientists (after all, they are only human too), those that fund them (the big corporations), those that repeat their claims to the wider world (the mainstream media) and those that pedal those same claims to support their own short-term agendas (the politicians). I do not know whether the messages that you are transmitting from the Thuban Council are representative of the truth or not. However, I have the same lack of knowing with regard to other transmissions (e.g. the Wingmaker or Voyager materials) and channellings (e.g. the Ra, Seth or ‘Galactic Federation of Light’ materials) from alleged extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, angelic or other sources. However, I do like it that you attempt to frame the Thuban transmissions within known science, whilst at the same time recognizing the limitations of the latter. Indeed, I find it quite refreshing to find someone here at Avalon presenting mainstream physics in a spiritual context; or, put another way, presenting deep spiritual truth within a framework of mainstream physics (both Newtonian and Quantum). So here is my first set of questions, most of which of which relate to the science of astronomy: - Question 1 Are you familiar with the Electrical Universe theory (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm plus this beautiful video, http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...90301316220374 from the same group)? This group suggest that black holes may not exist at all. They suggest that they are a creation of mainstream astronomers, along with dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and much, much more. They argue that mainstream astronomers have invented a whole range of phenomena in an attempt to explain the many anomalies that exist, if a largely gravitational based universe is taken as fact. In contrast, the Electric Universe theorists propose electromagnetism, as opposed to gravitation, as the dominating force within our galaxy and universe. They suggest that these apparent anomalies can be explained electromagnetically, without reference to black holes, dark matter, etc. These theories also raise all sorts of other questions about the standard gravitational model of the universe, including well known theories such as the ‘Expanding Universe’ and the ‘Big Bang’. Even the very nature of our own Sun does not appear to fit the gravitational theory. The latter suggests that the Sun should be hotter at its core and cooler at its extremities. However, according to the Electric Universe theorists the opposite is true. The physics and astronomy presented on this thread by your self and apparently supported by the Thuban Council seems largely to be mainstream in orientation and thus not supportive of the Electrical Universe theorists. Abraxas, what is your view (and that of the Thuban Council, if different) on the Electrical Universe theories? Hi Andrew! There are aspects of the Hannes Alfven cosmology which are a definite part of the Thuban cosmology; such as the integalactic magnetic fields, plasma waves and the general ubiquosity of electric currents in the universe. The manifestation of those physical phenomena are however a consequence and emergent from the standard mainstream models and in no manner require abandonment of well founded topics such as neutron stars, Big Bang Cosmogenesis and the 'dark energy' 'missing mass' scenarios (also see later answers). The 'Electric Universe' manifests via the actual emergence of inertia from a noninertial (you may term it electric in the permittivity of 'free space') pecursor, we call gravita. This then becomes the reason for Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. Here are some links as to the Nature of Mass/Inertia as Monopolic Electricity. http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder9.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder7.pdf Question 2 The maverick scientist, Paul LaViolette, also questions the existence of black holes at the centre of galaxies (see here, http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html, for clarification on this). Within his own theories, he suggests that an enormous ‘Mother Star’, which is a very different proposition to a ‘Black Hole’, occupies the centre of our galaxy. He argues that something similar exists at the centre of all galaxies. According to LaViolette it is from our own central mother star (i.e. the Galactic Centre or GC) that cosmic ray particles are dispersed in major periodic galactic core outbursts, also referred to as ‘Superwaves’. These superwave events are believed to occur at relatively regular intervals that very roughly seem to correlate with the precessional cycle and its half-cycle, though their also appear to be smaller, and less catastrophic, interim core outbursts between the main events. If such a precession-superwave correlation were precise it would suggest a major galactic core outburst every 26,000 or 13,000 years. On reading some of LaViolette’s work, I have not found a precise correlation between the two phenomena, only a very rough correlation. However, some writers seem to be trying to fit the two concepts together in a very precise and specific way. Thus they seem to suggest that, if the current precessional cycle is due to end on 21st December 2012, then it will be marked by the commencement of the next superwave outburst from our galactic core as it impacts us here on Earth. This would suggest that the last superwave occurred fairly precisely around either 13,000 or 26,000 years ago (i.e. 11,000 or 24,000 BCE). However, the truth of the matter appears to be that LaViolette’s theories (and yes, again they are theories, rather than facts) are not quite as simple or specific as that. For clarity on all of LaViolette’s theories see his informative website (http://www.etheric.com/) or read some of his papers and books, many of which are available to be read or bought at his website? So, Abraxas, what are your views on LaViolette’s mother star and superwave theories? Do they have any basis in truth according to the Thuban perspective? We would agree on the general idea of the cosmic rays as being emitted from the galactic center as a 'collective group consciousness' (see answers to later questions); but would not support the substitution of the Mother Black Hole by a Mother Star. The Thuban astrophysics is fully founded and based on the basic solution of Einstein's field equations of General Relativity in the Schwarzschild metric and so the Black Hole astrophysics of curved spacetime and gravitation on all levels. The cosmic rays are actually a spectrum of high energy superstring classes as a remnant of the inflationary epoch preceeding the Big Bang Standard Cosmogenesis of a thermodynamic expansion of a Black Body Planck Radiator (following a de Broglie MatterWave Inflaton-Instanton). So generally we do not support the LaViolette cosmology in its mainstream deviation. Question 3 Many researchers imply or suggest that the Maya knew that there is in fact a black hole at the centre of our galaxy and that they referred to this as ‘Hunab Ku’. This, of course, may or may not be the case. However, even if there is not a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, as LaViolette and the Electric Universe theorists suggest, this does not necessarily make the Maya wrong. ‘Hunab Ku’ may simply refer to the very visible dark rift that descends into the central bulge of the Milky Way as it is seen in our night skies from here on Earth. The Maya see this dark rift, amongst other things, as the birth canal of the Milky Way. The lower end of this dark rift terminates just above the ecliptic which itself lies around 6° above the Galactic Centre, whether that be a black hole or a mother star. Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council, like John Major Jenkins (see http://alignment2012.com/ plus his books on the Mayan Long Count Calendar), maintain that the creators of the Long Count Calendar aimed the long count calendar to end when the dark rift and bulge of the Milky Way aligned with the December Solstice Sun? Yes, this is an acceptable wording. Question 4 a) According to the Thuban perspective, who actually created the Long Count Calendar? The 8x8=64 Cycles of the Metamorphosis of the Human Chrysalis with the link below in b)indicates an Afterthought in InSpaceTime creating the Chrysalis fom the Logos of the Forethought in NoSpaceTime. b) According to John Major Jenkins this 5125.325 year calendar was most probably created by the pre-classic Mayan peoples of Izapa in south-western Mexico somewhere between 400 and 36 BCE. Do you concur with this view or are the origins of the long-count calendar much older (e.g. Olmec or even Atlantean)? http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id179.html c) Is the current 5125.325 year long count precisely one fifth of a precessional cycle (5,125.325 x 5 = 25,625.625 years) and thus the fifth and final age of the current precessional cycle? Yes, one fifth of 65 baktuns in 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 kin/days. d) Some Maya groups suggest that we are coming to the end of the 4th Age rather than the 5th. If this is the case does this invalidate the above proposed Mayan Long Count/Precessional Cycle correlation? Some Maya are free to carry different viewpoints from other Maya; just as is everyone else. The Thuban perspective considers this the end of the 5th cycle. Question 5 What is the actual duration of a single precessional cycle? The period of time generally quoted for one Precessional Cycle falls somewhere between 25,000 and 26,000 years. The classic figure is 25,920 years (2,160 x 12), though more recently various authorities have suggested somewhere between 25,600and 25,800 years as the correct figure. My own researches suggest that all these figures are probably inaccurate, largely because they all assume a fixed rate of precession. Estimations regarding the actual length of a single precessional cycle have largely been based on observations of the motion of stars and other astronomical bodies relative to the equinox and solstice points that are fixed to the seasons of the year, as we experience them here on Earth. In the current era (c. 2000) this rate is deemed to be about 50.29 arc seconds/year. This suggests a fixed precessional cycle of 25,770 years. Such an estimation on the actual length of the precessional cycle is based on that rate being an unchanging constant. However, in 1900 CE the rate was calculated at around 50.25 arc seconds/year. This latter figure suggests a precessional cycle that is twenty years longer than the current estimate (i.e. 25,790 years). Both of these rates appear to be correct for the eras concerned. Assuming this is so, the only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that the precessional rate is not constant at all. In fact, the precessional rate is clearly increasing at the present time. This does seem to explain, to some degree, the varying estimates on the length of the precessional cycle that I have come across over the years. My further researches have suggested to me that the precessional rate itself is also not a constant, and that it increases and decreases over much longer periods of time. Abraxas, do you and the Thuban Council concur with my own findings here, which basically tell us that the precessional rate is both variable and not constant over larger periods of time? 65 baktuns are 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 days for 25,626.8096 civil (Gregorian) years. Yes, we agree with your statement, that the precessional rates are not constant over lengthy periods of time. That is why we term it THIS precessional Cycle of 65 baktuns and refrain from extrapolating this cycle onto earlier time periods. Question 6 My own researches suggest two possible explanations for the variability in the precessional rate. These two explanations also suggest two very different theories of the actual mechanics behind precession. The first of these is the well known wobble explanation, also known as Lunisolar theory. This theory postulates that the precessional cycle exists as a result of a slow wobble in the Earth’s axis over long periods of time, which is believed to be caused by the gravitational effects upon the Earth from the Sun and, particularly, the Moon. The explanation for precessional rate variability that seems to best fit the lunisolar theory can be found amongst the theories of Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958). He maintained that the Earth’s orbital cycle has modulations that lead to considerable fluctuations in its climate. Following the lunisolar theory, it would appear that at least one, possibly more, of these modulations, could effect the rate of precession, resulting in the increasing and decreasing motion suggested above. The three cycles, proposed by Milankovitch, that are deemed responsible for the modulations in the Earth’s orbital cycle are the Eccentricity Cycle (actually two generalized cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years respectively), the Obliquity Cycle (approximately 41,000 years duration) and the Perihelion Cycle (a variable cycle of between 18,900 and 23,700 years in duration but averaging around 21,300 years).These three cycles, appear to have a more direct bearing on the Earth's climatic cycles than does the standard precessional cycle. The last statement assumes that both the Milankovitch cycles and the lunisolar theory of precession are correct, which, as we will see shortly, now appears to be open to question? Of the three Milankovitch cycles – eccentricity, obliquity and perihelion – it appears to be the obliquity cycle that is the strongest candidate for creating the variable rate in the precessional cycle, according to lunisolar theory. This involves the changing tilt of the Earth’s equatorial plane relative to the ecliptic plane over a period of approximately 41,000 years. The tilt is presently at an angle of 23.45° (23°27’) and oscillates between extremes of 22.1° (22°06’) and 24.5° (24°30’). The angle is currently decreasing. The greater the angle between ecliptic and global axis the greater the seasonal differences between summer and winter on the one hand and the climatic differences of the northern and southern hemisphere on the other. According to this theory it would appear to be the case that, as the angle of obliquity decreases over an approximate 20,500 year period, the rate of precession increases; then as the angle of obliquity increases over the remaining 20,500 years of its cycle, the precessional rate decreases. Whether the eccentricity and perihelion cycles might also effect the precessional rate is not clear. However, it seems likely that both cycles might have some bearing on precession, if the lunisolar theory is accepted as the correct explanation. Abraxas, it is this explanation of the precessional cycle and its variability that seems to most closely concur with that of your own and the Thuban Council. Do you concur with this statement? We agree with your description and emphasize that BOTH and other cycles are relevant. That is why we term it THIS precessional Cysle of 65 baktuns and refrain from extrapolating this cycle onto earlier time periods. There are also 'Wandering Planets', such as Neptune, now becoming mainstreamed in the availability of better technology to track such orbital dynamics and deviations. Question 7 The second alternative theory for both the mechanics behind the precessional cycle and its variability in rate is known as the Binary theory of precession. It has been most eloquently proposed by Walter Cruttenden (see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.). He maintains that the so-called Lunisolar wobble of the Earth does not exist. He argues that precession is caused by the curved motion through space of our Sun, with its solar system, around a second star that is its binary companion. This Binary theory of precession suggests a completely different explanation for the decreasing-increasing rate of precession, to that described above for the Lunisolar theory. However, before I attempt to describe that explanation for the variable precessional rate, I firstly need to summarize the basics of Cruttenden’s binary theory as a whole. Firstly, Cruttenden proposes a significantly shorter precessional cycle of about 24,000 years, as opposed to the usual 25,000 to 26,000 years described by proponents of the lunisolar theory. He bases this shorter period for precession on the writings of one Swami Sri Yukteswar. In 1894, Sri Yukteswar, one of the great Indian sages of that time, wrote his book, “The Holy Science”. Cruttenden argues, based on Yukteswar, that the precessional cycle is precisely the same cycle as that described by the Vedic civilization in India, as the Yuga Cycle. According to both Yukteswar and Cruttenden, the Yuga cycle comprises a 12,000 year Descending Phase, followed by a 12,000 year Ascending Phase. This results in a 24,000 year cycle in all, which both Yukteswar and Cruttenden correlate with the precessional cycle. Each phase is divided further into four Yugas each. In the descending phase these commence with a Satya Yuga (Golden Age) of 4,800 years, followed by a Treta Yuga (Silver Age) of 3,600 years, a Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age) of 2,400 years and finally a Kali Yuga (Iron Age) of 1,200 years. The ascending phase then immediately follows with each Yuga repeated, but in reverse order, commencing with a 1,200 year Kali Yuga and ending with a 4,800 year Satya Yuga. John Major Jenkins suggests a similar correlation between the yuga and precessional cycles. However, he appears to be unaware of the binary theory of precession. For this reason he attempts to explain the Yuga cycle in classic lunisolar theory terms (including the presumed 25,600 – 25,800 years which assume a constant and fixed motion for precession). However, Cruttenden and Jenkins also differ on a more important detail. This relates to the actual timing of the Yuga cycle. Jenkins suggests a chronology for the cycle with the low point between the descending Kali Yuga and the ascending Kali Yuga of the cycle based on the Mayan end date of 21st December 2012 CE. For Yukteswar and Cruttenden that low point occurred over 1,500 years earlier, in or around 499 CE. This difference is important as it raises the very significant issue of where we are now within the Yuga-Precessional cycle? Sri Yukteswar maintained that the precession of the equinoxes and solstices is based on a forgotten cosmic motion of our Sun around another star. He provides an explanation for the misunderstanding of the length of the Yuga cycle in Divine Years as opposed to Solar Years. Here is a quote from his work: - “The mistake crept into almanacs for the first time around 700 BC, during the reign of Raja Parik**, just after the completion of the last Dwapara Yuga (Bronze Age). At that time, Maharaja Yudhisthira, noticing the appearance of the dark Kali Yuga (Iron Age), made over his throne to his grandson, the said Raja Parik. Maharaja Yudhisthira, together with all the wise men of his court, retired to the Himalayan Mountains, the paradise of the world. Thus, there was none in the court of Raja Parik** who could understand the principle of correctly calculating the ages of the several Yugas. Hence, after the completion of the 2,400 years of the then current [descending] Dwapara Yuga, no one dared make the introduction of the Kali Yuga more manifest by beginning to calculate it from its first year and to put an end to the number of Dwapara years.” So here we see Sri Yukteswar offering his understanding of the origins of why measurement, definition and timing of the Yuga cycle has come down to us in such a confused manner in the present era. Yukteswar argued that the 24,000 divine years, each of 360 solar years each, as advocated by most current day Vedic scholars is an inaccurate interpretation of the ancient scriptures. This classic traditionalist version of the Yuga cycle suggests a very lengthy cycle of four descending ages; a 1,728,000 year Satya Yuga; a 1,296,000 year Treta Yuga; a 864,000 Dwapara Yuga; and a 432,000 Kali Yuga. Thus, the whole descending phase covers a period of 4.32 million years. According to this traditional dating of the Yuga cycle, the current Kali yuga commenced in 3102 BCE. So, if Sri Yukteswar is correct and the lengthy classic traditionalist interpretation of the yuga cycle is in error, what is the basis for the decreasing-increasing rate of his proposed 24,000 year yuga-precessional cycle as defined by the proposed binary theory? Basically, the answer to this relates to the distance between our Sun and its proposed binary companion, which according to the binary theory changes over the 24,000 year cycle. This is basically due to both stars having elliptical, rather than circular, orbits around each of their separate centre points. According to the theory, our Sun is furthest from its binary companion at the low point between the descending and ascending Kali Yugas. It is also at that point in time when the precessional rate is at its slowest. At the high point between the ascending and descending Satya Yugas, the precessional rate will be at its fastest. At that point our binary companion will be at its closest proximity to our Sun and solar system. Yukteswar, Cruttenden and Jenkins all propose that civilization is at its highest between the two Satya Yugas and at its lowest between the two Kali Yugas. However, as mentioned above, Jenkins believes we are at that low point right now, whereas Yukteswar and Cruttenden propose that the low point was in or around 499 CE. If this is so, then since about 1699 CE we have been in the ascending Dwapara (Bronze Age) phase of the Yuga cycle. So, Abraxas, I would be really interested to hear your view on this alternative Binary theory of precession as presented by Sri Yukteswar and Walter Cruttenden, as it seems to contradict both your own view and that of the Thuban Council that you represent? Not as much contradiction, but perception and analysis in encompassments. How did the Maya know the 'End of Time' and the ending of the Great Cycle of the human presence on Gaia? Some of my discourse is a little technical, describing calendrical systems and such; but it is given to show how the Mayan Calendar is correlated with the Gregorian one, the latter being the scientifically accepted standard of today's timekeeping. The Great Platonic Year utilises the change of 1 degree per 72 years or 50 arcseconds per year to specify a complete transversion of the Zodiac of the Milky Way in 72x360=25,920 years for a precessional cycle. For comparison the angular sizes of the sun and the moon coincide at 0.5 a degree, so allowing the possibility of annular eclipses to occur. But this precessional cycle changes, being constant in approximately 41,000 year periods and as an effect of the 'wobbling' of the earth's axis due to its deviation from exact sphericity. Gaia as a planet is flattened at the poles to form the geometry of an oblate ellipsoid and this geoemetry results in precession of the polar axis, tracing out an ellipsoid about the celestial poles. This precession then changes over great time periods in the interaction of the sun, the moon, other planets and the possible interaction with gravitating extrasolar bodies such as asteroids and comets. The present calculated rate of precession is about 71.6 years per degree or 50.3 arcseconds per year and so for a reduced Platonic Year of 25,765 years. Because the moon is receding from the earth due to tidal effects at about 38 millimeters per year or 38 kilometers per megayear, the precessional duration would increase substantially over timespans measured in millions of years. But this rate is halved to about 20 millimeters per year so 600 Million years ago, when a solar year was about 400 days for about 22 hours in a day. The tracking of the celestial movements are the basis for cyclicities and the invention of calendars. A Tropical Year of 365.24219 mean solar days (msd) describes the movement of the Earth in orbit about the sun relative to the vernal equinox and because of precession the Tropical Year is about 20 minutes shorter than the Sidereal Year of 365.25636 msd and which measures the earth's orbit relative to the 'fixed' stars. Elliptical precession relative to the fixed stars requires about 112,000 years to complete a cycle and the Anomalistic Year of 365.25964 msd relative to the sun's perihelion adds another 21,000 years to 133,000 years to correlate the three different years. An Eclipse Year of 346.62003 msd specifies the interval between successive passages of the sun through a given node of the moon's orbit and as the lunar nodes move westwards by over 19 degrees per year in regression, the Saros Cycle of just over 18 years and of 223 lunations or 6585.32 msd closely approximate 19 Eclipse Years of 6585.78 msd. The difference of 0.46 of a msd then indicates the reoccurrence of the saros eclipses on a location shifted westwards by so 135 degrees. The saros cycle was known to the Maya, the Babylonians and to the ancient astronomers of human prehistory. Related to the Saros Cycle is the Metonic Cycle, known to Greek and Hebrew calendar makers and correlating the 19-year-cycle of lunations to 19 Tropical Years with 235 Synodic Months, each of 29.53059 msd to within 2 hours. This then is compared to the Civil Year of 365.2425 mean solar days and based on the Julian Year of a Century of 100x365.2425=36,524.25 mean solar days. But for the recent human history, a greater cycle of 133,000 years can now be used to specify this human evolvement to the present nexus point in linearly measured calendrical time. About 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics are found in the archaeological fossil record and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthal Man had largely disappeared from Asia and by 30,000 years ago slowly became extinct in Europe. About 100,000 years ago existed the largest primate hitherto identified. Gigantopithecus Blackii was over 3 meters tall and weighed up to 600 kilograms and fossils were found in Southeast Asia. The earliest Homo Sapiens Sapiens characteristics are found in the fossil record at so 100,000 years ago and the cultural leap into cave paintings and art began so 30,000 years ago with the great change from hunter gatherer to farmer and domesticator coincides with the holocene era of 10,000 years ago. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are the matrilineal and patrilineal most common recent ancestors for all living humans today, using genetic markers and molecular clocks to trace genetic variations back in time. Nuclear DNA is subject to variation, whilst the mitochondrial DNA of the ovum is relatively stable and the mutation rate on the Y-chromosome is relatively constant. Mitochondrial Eve so is said to have lived about 140,000 years ago near Ethiopia in Africa. Y-chromosomal Adam is said to be at least 30,000 years younger than Mitochondrial Eve and perhaps only 60,000 years old and also from Africa. The oldest homo sapiens fossil dates to 160,000 years ago and as classified by the Herto find of 2003. It is also said, that the Neanderthals split from a common ancestry with the Homo sapiens genus about 300,000 years ago and that the genetic evidence points to a Homo Sapiens origin in the African savannah so 200,000 years ago. The Mayan understanding now relates the evolutionary leap from Homo Sapiens from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens or 'Wise Man' to FIVE Great Ages and given in the recent precessional supercycle. 133,000 years become 129,600=5x25,920 Platonic Cycles using a precessional average of 1 degree per 72 years. Twelve Platonic Cycles are 311,040 years and 311,040 years ago the DNA-architecture of what was to evolve into Modern Man became INDUCTED by what is mythologically called 'Lemurian Root-Soul-Energy' and also as the 'giants' and the 'Sons of God' impregnating the 'Daughters of Man', say as in your Genesis encodings Genesis.6.2-4. You might now understand that this encoding describes something before the Noahic 'Great Flood' and something after the 'perfect ten Noahic generations' redefined the 'Age of Man' as 120 years from a previous 'longer lived' generation and bounded by Methuselah's 969 years as the 'oldest man' who ever lived. So now some of you may understand the archetype of the 'Great Flood' as the nexus point in the human history, when a previous hominoid evolution became terminated and replaced with a new one. The previous hominoid generation was Homo Erectus culminating in the Lemurian archetype and then continuing in a multifaceted fashion with concurrent homninoids like Homo Neanderthalensis and 'great apes' like Gigantopithecus and after having itself evolved from Homo Habilis and Australopithecine ancestors dating back so 12 Grand Cycles earlier to 12x311,040=3,732,480 years. This then is the reason as to why the Gaian anthropologists date the emergence of the Australopithecine human ancestry to about 4 Million years -13 Grand Cycles are 4,043,520 years. The Solar System was created 5 Billion years ago and it took until 130,000 years ago to evolve Modern Man from Gaia's primeval and elemental beginnings. The Mayan so manipulates the archetypical matrix of time to specify the first Platonic cycle as the reformation of a cosmic identity in utitility of the 10 principalities of the cosmogenesis applicable to the univere and all its substructures, such as a planetary evolvement in self-consciousness. Application of the 10th principle metamorphoses the Old Identity as the 1st principle into a New Identity using the 9 Timelords as the means for this transformation. So the Maya calls the first Platonic cycle the Age of Capricorn, thus labeling the 10th element of a zodiacal identity as rootreduction 10=1+0=1 and as mapped in the starry constellations of the Mazzaroth and of the ancient understandings. The Platonic Age of Capricorn so began, when historical man Homo Sapiens differentiated from his environment and first became 'different' from its homo relatives, like Homo Neanderthalensis. This and all other Platonic cycles can then be compared to similar 'Great Years' such as the Yugas in the Hinduistic reckonings. The Satya Yuga as the Spiritual Age of Gold and of Meditation (Dhyana) lasts 4800 years in descent and is followed by the Treta Yuga as the Mental Age of Silver and of Sacrifice (Yajna), lasting 3600 years in descent. The Dvapara Yuga as the Emotional Age of Bronze and of Worship (Archana) lasts 2400 years in descent and is followed by the Kali Yuga as the Physical Age of Iron and of Alms (Daana), lasting 1200 years in descent into Materialism, before ascending again for a similar period of time. The overall descent from Spiritual Understanding to Materialistic Knowledge so becomes 12,000 years followed by a matching ascent from the physical to the spiritual rebirth. The 'Day of Brahman' is said to be about 1017 seconds, which is the Age of the Universe, 6x1017 seconds being 20 billion years. The 'Age of Brahman' then relates this age of physical cosmic existence to spiritual preexistence in the factor 1022/1017=105 and where the light invariance c=wavelengthxfrequency specifies this factor in the inversion constant 1/c=1022/(3x1030)=1022x(3.33x10-31)=3.33x10-9 and so as 1022=Inverse Timeinstanton/c=Source-Frequency/c as the 'Age of Brahman'. Question 8 a) John Major Jenkins has, to my mind, persuasively argued the idea that the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator was the basic reason why the astronomically aware long count calendar creators (Maya or otherwise?) proposed that the end of their calendar would occur in the present era. Do you concur with this? Yes. b) Many have criticized Jenkins theory, stating that the alignment was actually closest at the December Solstice 1998, which is certainly true. However, Jenkins counters this, rightly in my view, with the fact that the December Solstice Sun in fact eclipses the galactic equator for a much longer period of time. He suggests a period of 36 years, from 1980 – 2016, on the basis that the Sun is 30’ of arc longitude in diameter. In fact, according to my Starry Night programme, the December Solstice Sun will eclipse the Galactic Equator for 43 years, from 1976 – 2019, as the actual diameter of the Sun at that time of the year, in the current era, is 33’ of arc longitude wide. The 2012 cycle ending date is well within this range and thus seems to support Jenkins’ arguments. Do you and the Thuban Council concur with this view? The Mayan master timeline spans five great cycles of longcounts; each longcount being comprised of 13 baktuns, each baktun encompassing 144,000 kin or days,and as 20 katuns of 7,200 kin each. It is the 65th and final baktun, which defines the 'birth of the starhuman' archetype to replace the older 'human' archetype initiated 5x13x144,000 kin or 9,360,000 days before the nexus date of December 21st, 2012. As the sun's angular diameter is about 0.53 degrees, the Maya calculated the ending of their longcount in the last cycle of the winter-summer solstices as a function of the Mayan Precessional 'Great Platonic Year' of 25,626.81 kin (or civil Gregorian days). A precessional degree then becomes 9,360,000/360=26,000=71.1856.x365.2425 days and so in the Mayan kin count, 71.1856 civil years specify a 1-degree precession and the galactic synchronisation at the winter solstice will be 71.1856x0.53=37.728 civil years for the solar transit across the galactic centre. The Maya obtained the longcount from the 'hermetic' tradition (of the Plumed Serpent Melchizedek) of Kukulkan (or Quetzalcoatl in the Aztec parallel) and this 'prophecy' relates directly to a scripturally encoded 'day count' of 12,000+1,600=13,600 days in a 'furlong' count of measuring the 'inside' and the 'outside' of the 'great city' {John.2.21;Revelation.11.1-2;14.20;21.16} as the 'Temple of God'. These 13,600 days from December 21st, 2012 will specify September 12th, 1975 as the beginning of the 37.728 civil year period of 13,780 days, then ending 180 days after that date on June 19-21, 2013, which is the following summer solstice in the 21-23 December, 2012 variation. The midpoint is 18.864 civil years from either end and pinpoints 6,890 days from September 12th, 1975 on 24th July 1994. The 'Beginning of the 'Age of Aquarius' is then scripturally determined within the last of the 20 katuns of 7,200 days or 19.713 civil years beginning on this April 5th, 1993 (20 civil years as 20x365+5=7,200+105 days and ending on April 6th, 2013. This shall be further detailed in the timeline agenda, but engages the 105 days of 'Noah's daycount' (in Genesis) from the sending of the Raven of the Tarrying and the Dove of Peace to the Rainbow Covenant. The 'Beginning of the Age of Aquarius' and as a 'Lower Bound' so is dated to the 'transition of the Sun from Capricorn into Aquarius on January 20th, 1998 and an exit from Aquarius on February 18th, 1998 and as 3.5 years from the midpoint date to specify a 7-year period archetypically characterising the galactic synchronisation scripturally and prophetically. July 24th, 1994 plus 3.5x360=7x180=1260 days for January 5th, 1998 and a date to which are added 15 days as the encoded 'hour of the beast' in the proportion 1 day/24 hours=360days/15days and the dayyears encoded in Ezekiel. This 'addition' then becomes 'natural' in the Gregorian calendar of 365.2425 days as compared to the Ancient calendar of 360 days in the 18 days as the differential between the two calendars (360x3.5+18=365x3.5+0.5) and the halfweek addition/subtraction of 3.5 days (see timeline agenda). The 'Upper Bound' for the 'Beginning of the Age of Aquarius' must so engage the solar transit from Aquarius into Pisces in a mirror image for the 'Lower Bound' situated at the midpoint of the center of February 3rd, 2005 to assign this 'Upper Bound' the civil date February 19th, 2012 and so a 14-year superposition (2x7=14 proportionalises 2x18.864=37.728) for the 'Aquarian Transit' from 1998 to 2012 and as the galactic synchronisation of the galactic center 'Hunab Ku' with the Sun 'RahSol'. Overall however, in the Mayan longcount September18th,1618 began this last baktun of 144,000 days. This is 25 years and 108 days or 9,239 kin before the birth of Isaac Newton on January 4th, 1643 as the onset of the 'Age of Reasoning' and science-based Enlightenment in the scientific methodology and a 'Renaissance of Rationality', say as instigated by Galileo Galilei (February15th,1564-January 8th,1642). It would be this 'last' baktun or a 395-year period from 1618 to 2013, which would refine and finetune the human reasoning mind to gather enough data to 'finally' allow a full remembrance of its UnTimed collective reality in nospacetime and where 391 years from 1618 define the Year of the beginning manifestation for the 'Trial of Humanity' in 1618+391=2009. c) However, the question still remains as to why the long count creators specifically chose the 2012 December Solstice, as opposed any of the other 43 December Solstices’ between 1976 and 2019? Do you have an explanation as to why 2012 in particular is so special? Yes, additionally to the above; the timeline in the Great Pyramid also (from the so called Great Step) also points to the 2012/2013 period and most important from the Thuban perspective, the prophetic timelines in the Logos descriptive 'scriptures' converge and synthesize in a precise daycount of 1600 from August 4th, 2008 to December 21st, 2012. d) From the Thuban perspective, is their anything that stands out for the more astronomically precise 1998 December Solstice alignment? See above. The 'Age of Aquarius' can be said to begin January 20th, 1998 in the solar transit from Capricorn into Aquarius. Was that year significant or is it the entire period from 1976 – 2019 that is of greatest importance here? The 'Great prophetic timeline' began September 12th, 1975 and ends August 4th, 2013 for a 'weaning' of the StarHuman Baby, born on the Mayan solstice date. Question 9 Many alternative researchers and writers have, through some very sloppy research in my opinion, confused the current galactic alignment between the December Solstice Sun and the Galactic Equator, as we view it from our location on Earth and as described above, with the very different phenomenon of our solar system periodically crossing the plane of our galaxy. This latter phenomenon is believed to occur several times during our solar systems 225 – 250 Million year orbit of the Galactic Centre. Many alternative researchers claim that our solar system is now in the process of crossing the plane of our galaxy. Astralwalker, on his Nexus thread has stated this (see his second entry on the Nexus thread). Kerry Cassidy, and many others at Avalon, continually refer to this alleged phenomenon occurring in 2012, at the end of the Mayan Calendar. Here is the truth of the situation as far as I can currently understand it. From what I can gather, no scientist can definitively say exactly where our solar system is in relation to the galactic plane. As far as mainstream astronomy is concerned, I have so far come across the following. Back in the mid-1980’s, as far as I can gather, certain astronomers were proposing the following theory. They suggest that our solar system is not currently crossing the galactic plane. The general thrust of this perspective seems to indicate that our solar system oscillates above and below the galactic plane in whole cycles of between 54 and 80 million years. The favourite seems to be a 66 million year cycle, with 33 million years below and 33 million years above the galactic plane. The indication from that research is that we are now above the plane and have been ascending away from it for about the last 3 million years. However, in contradiction to the above, here are nine estimates (courtesy of one Zyzygyz), from various sources, of our distance above the galactic plane that I found on Geoff Stray’s website (see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/idiot.html - see bottom of page). 1 parsec (pc) is equal to 3.26 light years (ly). The range is 14 ly (approx 4 pc) - 112.67 ly (approx 34.5 pc), with a median value of about 63 ly (approx 19.5 pc). The top of the wave has been estimated at 85 ly or 26 pc or (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507655.pdf ). From this data, it would appear that are solar system is at or near the top of the sinusoidal wave. These figures seem to suggest that it is much longer than the 3 million years ago, mentioned earlier, that our solar system actually crossed the galactic plane. Frankly, I do not know how to translate the number of parsecs or light years above the galactic plane into the number of years in time that have transpired since our solar system last crossed over? I guess there are various parameters to take into account, including the actual length of our solar systems transit around the galactic centre (estimates vary from 200 to 250 million years). Additionally one would need to know precisely how far above and below the galactic plane our solar system rises and falls in its oscillating journey around the GC. As the extremely variable figures for all of these parameters suggest in the explorations I have so far found above, then it is currently virtually impossible to state anything precise about the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane. It appears then, that claims that our solar system is crossing the galactic plane now or on the 21st December 2012 are not as well founded as many here on this forum and elsewhere seem to believe. It is fair to ask whether any of the scientific information and theory presented above is accurate or true? And yes, we are here definitely dealing with theory rather than fact. So the scientists and researchers might simply be wrong. They have been wrong before and they will undoubtedly be wrong again in the future. They can not even agree amongst themselves! However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if they are incorrect, the vastness of our galaxy and the very slow progress of our Solar System oscillation above and below the galactic plane, as suggested by all these theories and measurements, would make it virtually impossible to identify an exact date for it crossing the galactic plane. It would certainly seem unlikely that a specific day (such as 21st December 2012), year, decade, century or even millennium could be determined for the Solar Systems entrance into and exit out of the galactic plane? Indeed, how thick is the galactic plane and how long would it take our Solar System to pass through it? Would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of years? Determining where our solar system is in relation to the imaginary line of the galactic equator is equally problematic. We simply do not have a precise enough knowledge on the size of our galaxy; how far we are from its centre; how long a single orbit around the centre takes; or how frequent our oscillation above and below the galactic equator is? So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on the location of our solar system in relation to the galactic plane? I would imagine that the Thuban Council have accurate measurements for our galaxy and could tell us exactly where we are in relation to the galactic plane and the galactic centre. So, when did our solar system last cross the galactic plane? When will it next cross it? How long dose it actually take for the solar system to cross the galactic plane? How thick is it? What are the true dimensions of our galaxy in terms of width, depth, the true period of orbit of our solar system around galactic centre and our distance from same? When the universe was 236.5 million years old at a cosmological redshift of 7.477; the universe was the scale of what today is known as a galactic suprcluster. A galactic supercluster has so a diameter of so 473 million lightyears and represents the gravitational interaction limit. The Copernican Principle of Cosmology states, that the universe beyond this boundary scale will be isotripic and homogenous (looking the same in all directions and having the same texture or pixel structure say). A massless universe can be described as a Mother-Black Hole with a curvature radius of 16.9 billion lightyears and so the Daughter-Black Hole of radius 236.5 million lightyears as a supercluster Black Hole equivalent willso carry 'missing mass' and 'dark energy' (actually a form of stationary 'auric' lightmatrix as a 'space filling' consciousness). So to close the universe as a selfcontained unity, the massless mother BH interacts with the inertial daughter carrying the entire mass-seed of the creation (Big Bang) within it and characterizing the 236.5 million year marker. This marker so is a template or blueprint for the later much expanded universe and holofractalises again in galactic subsystems from supercluster to group to galaxy to starsystem to platery system to continents etc. etc. In particular the gravity bound holographs itself in a template galaxy like the MWG in the solar systems orbit fractalising the Period of the orbit as the cosmic time of the manifestation of the 'master template'. So period T=1/f=2pi/w=236.5 million years. To give specific values for galactic parameters is unwarranted in the deeper sense, as the galaxies supplement their baryonic luminous parameters with nonluminous 'consciousness energy' or 'haloes'. So for example the MWG halo interacts peripherally with the halo of Andromeda, its approaching sister galaxy so 2.6 million lightyears away. Generally, the MWG is 100,000 lightyears across and 1,000 lightyears thick in the luminosity and the distance between the galactic center and the Sun is 9,360,000 lightdays as defined by the present precessional cycle. Question 10 It has been suggested by many new age and alternative researchers and also from various channeled and transmitted (including Ashayana Deane in her Voyagers 2 book) sources that our solar system is in a 26,000 year (generally believed to reflect the precessional cycle of the same length) orbit around Alcyone, the central star in the Pleiades Cluster. The latter is located in the shoulder area of the constellation of Taurus. Often associated with these sources is the suggestion that we are about to enter a 2000 year period of time within this cycle that takes us into an area of galactic space known as the Photon Band. This reference, http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Disinformation.html, to LaViolette’s work is very interesting, as it deals with the confusion between LaViolette’s galactic superwave theory (mentioned earlier) and the new age concept of the photon belt, together with the idea that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone. For the record and hopefully to clear up further confusion, this short article from LaViolette is well worth a read. The article basically shows the photon band theory for what it is, which is a rather ludicrous piece of misinformation and/or disinformation, first published in the 1980’s. The Pleiades connection to the Mayan Calendar is both true and interesting. However, the photon band theory that suggests that our solar system is orbiting Alcyone is quite simply nonsensical. Whether one accepts LaViolette’s superwave theory or not (I remain open minded on that one), the above article clearly demonstrates to me that the Photon Band and Alcyone orbit theory is not based on any kind of rational observational astronomy. So, Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on both the Photon Band concept and our solar system’s alleged 26,000 year orbit of Alcyone? Atlas-Pleione-Alcyone-.. are labels for a very potent archetype for the Seven Sisters. This archetype is a hologram which can be mapped and mirrored onto any consciousness able to acknowledge the manifesto of this symbol, say as the Pleiades. The photon-belt so is NOT a 3D physical phenomenon, but a consciousness, defined in the gauge physics of the coupling between the light parameters and the inertia parameters. We term it the RestMassPhoton or RMP as the 'Particle of Consciousness'. Then the 'photion belt' energy is real in a 4D sense in terms of said RMPs, but is not in any way some physical or electromagnetic field interacting with rotating dynamical systems of astrophysics. The Seven Sisters so can easily 'energize'; seven continents or seven oceans or seven chakras or seven somethings upon Gaia or any other place 'consciously' energized by RMPs. Question 11 What is your view on the idea presented by some alternative researchers that our solar system is originally from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not indigenous to the Milky Way Galaxy? This perspective on our place in the galaxy, at first appears rather complicated. However, the complication seems to have been created by certain writers either misunderstanding or purposefully distorting the original article by Steven Majewski, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Virginia. Basically, the original article proposes the presence of two galaxies, the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) crossing each other at a sharp angle of nearly 90°. The basic proposition is that the more massive of these two galaxies, our very own MWG, is slowly devouring (over billions of years) a less massive galaxy, the SDG. The following source (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030924.html), by Robert Roy Britt (2003) suggests that our solar system, within the MWG, is now passing close to (though not necessarily through) the cross-flow between the MWG and the SDG. There is no suggestion, in the original article or the report referred to above, that our Solar System ever originated anywhere other than within the MWG. However, two non-scientific sources appear to have either misunderstood or distorted this information. These are at http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423 and http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html respectively. Cliff High, among others, has also presented this view in a recent conversation with Michael St. Clair, which frankly leads me to question both High's and St. Clair's credibility as objective researchers. All of these sources claim that our solar system does not originate within the MWG at all. In fact, they seem to state rather categorically, that our home galaxy is the SDG. They suggest that our Solar System is now being drawn into the flow of the plane of the MWG, rather than continuing onward in its flow with SDG. The distorted versions of the theory also seem to be suggesting that the movement of our Solar System into the galactic plane of the Milky Way is the primary cause of the climate change that we are now experiencing on our planet and also elsewhere in our solar system. I do believe man’s greedy, wasteful and consumerist activities are contributing to the problems we are seeing today and making the survival of this planets biodiversity (including ourselves) much less likely than would be the case had we taken better care of our planet. However, I do concur that this may not be the primary factor in climate change. However, there are other far less radical explanations for solar system climate change that do not require the distorted two galaxy explanation proposed here. For example, it is possible that we are simply entering a slightly more lively and energetic part of the MWG? Or, maybe our Sun is simply undergoing changes that are effecting the rest of the solar system? Or, maybe the two galaxy scenario is in part correct, but that rather than being swept out of the SDG flow and into the MWG stream, we are simply beginning to enter the cross-flow between our own (i.e. that of the MWG) galactic plane and that of the SDG? Here is what appears to be a fairly accurate rebuttal of the more distorted sources of the MWG devouring the SDG (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...nother-galaxy/). Abraxas, what is the Thuban view on this Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy origins view for our solar system? Just as the MWG is a template galaxy, so is the local Rahsol starsystem a blueprint Star System so is Gaia a template Planetary-Moon System. They are all holograms of each other and all have formed from the Galactic nebula labeled the MWG. Final Comment That is it for now on the question front, though I do have a load of other questions, many of them ET related, that I may ask you in a future post. However, before I go I would just like to express the following thoughts and observations that this thread has initiated within me. It seems to be difficult for many here at Avalon, and elsewhere within the alternative and conspiratorial communities, to grasp that science and spirit are one, and do not need to be continuously at odds with each other. However, it is just such a polarity between fixed beliefs and opinions that has become so evident within this and so many other threads here at Avalon. There are many diverse opinions and beliefs held here by the contributors to this forum, just as there are out their in the real world. We seem to have a need to find certainty within the scientific, philosophical, political, religious and spiritual frameworks that we come to adopt during the varying phases of our individual life-cycles. This is both natural and human. However, it becomes extremely hard for us to even begin to let go of a given perspective on truth and reality that has seemingly proven itself to us. We thus hang on to the old perspective and resist any new approaches for far longer than we need to. Abraxas, you have clearly unsettled quite a few contributors here with your presentation from the Thuban Council combined with your own scientific understandings. Hence the defensiveness and hostility you have received here from many at Avalon. We all feel very uncomfortable when yet another perspective arrives to challenge the one we are currently adopting. We often then become defensive of our own presently adopted set of opinions and beliefs and hostile toward the new perspective being presented to us. Personally, I take your message (and anybody else’s) at face value and have no reason to doubt that you truly believe this information is coming directly from the Thuban Council. Who am I to judge? I merely weigh what you say up against other things that I have learned, and think I know, and then try to use my discernment and discretion. Of course, I rarely, if ever, have a final answer! I certainly do not feel that you are either a fraud or a disinformation agent, as some seem to believe. I sense that you are presenting your own wisdom as experienced and received. It is, of course, possible that some of this information has been distorted by either your own personality or by the Thuban Council itself. Indeed, the latter could have its own agenda, unbeknownst to you or anyone else. This is clearly what many here at Avalon seem to suspect. However, the same can be said for any other transmitted or channeled source, including that of Ashayana Deanne, which many here seem to hold in, what I believe to be, an unreasonably high regard. I fail to understand why folk are so willing to accept her work as pure and untainted and yet believe your own transmissions are so tainted. I guess it is all a matter of belief and opinion in the end? That is until such time as any one particular approach can be clearly shown to be true or false. Others here might think you are simply deluded. However, such could equally be said of most of the personalities presented both at Camelot and Avalon. Whilst that might be the case with a few of the whistle blowers and witnesses interviewed by Kerry and Bill, in my humble opinion, I do not feel this is the case with either yourself or many others. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your responses to my rather long-winded questions. Best Wishes Truthseeker (Andrew) Yes, I agree with your final comment and thank you for your efforts of asking such detailed questions, which I have tried to answer in similar style. AA

01-30-2010, 12:19 AM	#14
halebox Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) What are the effects of cell towers on humans? How close is too close? What can orgone be used for? You mentioned the darkworkers are actually lightworkers as they have their purpose and are part of the balance. This is really hard to digest but Im starting to get this and I feel some people will never go to the light no matter how hard you try. So the darkworkers who influence these souls are in a sense making sure that all around me are of similar intent if I make it to 4D this time around. At the same time fulfilling their agenda. I will keep full force ahead in my mission but at some point beyond my control the door closes for the followers. I did my best. Its a very odd sense of relief knowing that negative forces influencing people who have their own will to choose the dark side is at some point is out of my control but yet is all ok and will always be this way. wow Thuban view on eating meat? So earth humans ascending will become Starhuman then become Dragons? Those who stay in 3D eventually become the Greys? Are emotions a 3D trait? Describe visually the Pleadian race. Describe visually the Arcturian race. Describe visually the Sirian race. Describe visually the Andromedan race. Name race and planet not discovered or mentioned yet on our internet. What is the effect of an abortion to all involved. Thank you Council of Thuban via Abaraxas Last edited by halebox; 01-30-2010 at 12:47 AM.

02-03-2010, 01:33 AM	#17
hippihillbobbi Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA Posts: 120	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) here's the link for the "Book of the Dragons" ...... it's really pretty interesting. http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id106.html i'd love to discuss this with some of ya'll -- it's a bit heavy, as i said earlier to Abraxas. i'd love to read what ya'll think! hippihill Last edited by hippihillbobbi; 02-03-2010 at 01:45 AM.

02-03-2010, 07:34 AM	#20
Passenger Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4	Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here) Greetings Abraxas, This is some thread you have here... i feel that i have journeyed through all of the dimensions at once as i read the 42 pages and it is still going strong. Some rough bits there earlier on with the Dragon Slayers but balance has been restored - mirror mirror on the wall... gives a whole new perspective of the verses - 'judge not lest you be judged'. There is magic here. You mention that the 4th dimension will inherit the 3rd dimension. Or at least all that is ready for ascension/harvest. Is 4D not just a mental/astral plain full of assorted beings with a lot of baggage/issues and like to play games with entities on the 3D plain. Is this also not where the Magi go to do the same. If so then how will this 3D+4D=New World co-exist with the present and quite often insane group from the current 4D occupants? It will take some time to get used to the form and the formless in a natural co-existence... assuming i have any of this correct at all. BTW - i have been seeing a swiss cheese reality for some time now. With - 'so it seems' - different parts of my vision in different realities of completely different matter. Some parts fade in and out and sometimes other parts become malleable or like liquid. Happens more and more often now. Which brings me to another question... if the gates are already open then are there already some ascended 'StarHumans' in the New World ? Acting as the ground crew for the oncoming 4D newbies. The greeting party as it were. Thanks for the inspiration you have given me to better understand my understanding. -P