Overblown Confidence in Scientific Theories
Topics:
“Overblown Confidence in Scientific Theories”
"Tektites and Other Stones"
“Parallel Dimensions vs. Dimensions Within Dimensions”
“Spying with Stones: The Steam Method”
Sunday, October 26, 2014 (Private/In Person)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Ken (Oba) with Ann and John
ELIAS: Good morning!
GROUP: Good morning, Elias!
ELIAS: (Laughs) And what shall we discuss?
KEN: I’m going to do a bit of just conversing, and I have some notes as well, and I’m just going to play and see what happens.
ELIAS: Very well.
KEN: Thank you. Okay, I was curious about reading scientific papers briefly, you know, not fully getting into them, where most scientists currently still believe that tektites are from Earth and were blasted into space by an impact of an asteroidal object – they were a meteorite or whatever. And a few scientists believe that tektites are from the moon, and you were in agreement that they are from the moon. I think we talked a little bit about ancient lunar volcanic activity, because the low escape velocity on the moon blasted these items into space, and they made their way to Earth. So they didn’t really originate on Earth.
Interesting to me is that even though it’s the lesser-agreed-with scientific theories about them being from the moon, the scientists who believe they’re from the moon seem much more logical to me than the stuff that so much of science just staunchly disagrees with. Do you have any comments on that? It’s just like, I guess, how collective facts work?
ELIAS: This has been a situation with science for a considerable time framework, that I would express for approximately 300-400 years that individuals that move in the direction of science, they incorporate a tendency to follow one idea that is most agreed-upon at the time – not that that may be the correct idea or the correct information, but it also is dependent upon how the idea is presented.
This is a significant factor, which is most obvious in relation to medical sciences. That is the most obvious to be seen, in which it can be obviously argued. In many other fields of science it is not as easy to argue a theory, for they do not necessarily incorporate physical evidence before them; they are speculating in relation to many different subjects.
But, using medical science as an example – which it holds for any science – generally speaking, whichever individual is the most prominent in their field – not necessarily the most accomplished but the most prominent, the most prolific in their activity in their field, regardless of whether they are correct or not – if they are prolific in their field and if they are prominent in their field, they generally are more forceful. And therefore, in simple terms, –
KEN: They gain a following.
ELIAS: – they become louder.
KEN: Oh, okay.
ELIAS: And in that, they express themselves confident in what they are expressing.
Now, generally, that confidence becomes somewhat overblown, to which, they refuse to acknowledge or accept other theories. And in that, that sets into motion a persona of that individual of being so confident in their direction that they are absolutely correct. And from that, they generally do develop a significant following, and other individuals, in a manner of speaking, become swept up in that direction. This is the reason that when this occurs, it may be many years before another theory can be explored and gains recognition.
For, what occurs is all of the apprentices, all of the other scientists become swept up into that wave, that direction, and they continue to experiment and explore in that direction, which generally leads them to non-answers, but they continue to attempt to make that correct. And that may slow their progress for a considerable time framework, for they refuse to acknowledge or accept any other avenue that could be explored that may be more efficient and may actually be more correct. And in that, it generally is about whoever is the most predominant and most prolific individual and expressing the most confidence in their own theory.
KEN: Okay. Based on that, I was just curious: You had previously mentioned that confidence translates as attractive energy. Is that correct? [Elias must have nodded here]
Okay, so I was curious. So where you talked about the leaders in the field and the staunch advocates of keeping it that way and not going further, regardless of that they have this attractive energy and that is influencing what I loosely refer to as the followers of said theories?
ELIAS: Most definitely.
KEN: Okay. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.
ELIAS: Most definitely. I would express that in your scientific field of psychology, Freud was the prominent, confident individual, and because of that, his theories were followed for many, many, many, many years. And in that, it was many years before Jung gained enough confidence to rival those theories and move in a very different direction, and that is an excellent example of what occurs with different scientists, [such as] Einstein and Oppenheimer.
KEN: Right.
ELIAS: Einstein moved in one direction and was very confident in his direction of his theories. Oppenheimer moved into that scene with a very different agenda, and in that, employed – not that he generated the movement himself, or the theories himself; he did not – but, being a figurehead, being the individual with the confidence and the direction, employed many scientists with the objective of moving in a different direction for a different agenda.
Therefore, even in sciences it is not always a scientist themself that moves the scientific community in different directions. It is generally dependent upon who is expressing in the most confident way in the most determined manner, and is expressing in a capacity of refusing to explore or accept any other direction than what their agenda is.
KEN: Excellent. Excellent. That discussion that you just brought up reminded me in the process of how scientists in the field of archeology, to this day there is even an expression for it where it relates to the Bering Strait land bridge. There are some scientists that just cannot give up the idea the only way this particular continent was populated was by that Bering land bridge. They use the term “Clovis First,” and presently the evidence is just mounting and mounting and mounting that that is just not the sole pathway and that there is a possibility… Of course, I agree with what you said, but I’m just speaking for the general public. People are entertaining the possibility that maybe native Americans were here already.
ELIAS: Precisely.
KEN: Right. Because that was one thing that struck me when one time somebody was having a session and you, if I remember – I’m going to paraphrase, but you said, “Your native Americans are more native than you think.” And that just caught me right there. I said, “That is important to me.” It is very important to me that you said that.
ELIAS: Which, in a manner of speaking, is an interesting example and emphasizes what we are discussing. For in this, it is an example of a ludicrous direction, that individuals can accept that there are two origins of man, but they cannot accept that there are three.
KEN: Right. Right.
ELIAS: That they can accept that there is ONE origin of man, but they cannot accept that there is more than that.
KEN: Right. Right.
ELIAS: But the factor that they accept that there are two is the ludicrous aspect. But in that, also, individuals that generate discoveries and that establish those discoveries, once they are established, for the most part they do not want to be disputed.
And, in a manner of speaking, there is an underlying factor which moves back to the individual again, that if their direction is disputed, very similar to what we were expressing yesterday in “Does your perception change if another individual disputes it?”, this is very much in conjunction with that. [1] For these individuals in their confidence of what they express, they also are no different from yourselves, in that if it is disputed, that may call into question the validity of their own expression.
KEN: So it’s a threat, in a sense?
ELIAS: Yes. And therefore, it is very important to them to defend it.
KEN: Okay. And defense is opposing energy.
ELIAS: Which, it does NOT dispute their perception. It does not CHANGE their discovery or the validity of it. A third origin of man does not invalidate the previous two; it adds to it. But that is not the manner in which they perceive it. They perceive it as a threat.
KEN: Right. Right.
ELIAS: And therefore they hold to their explanation, which in actuality is considerably ludicrous, that two entire continents would be entirely populated by the few individuals that would cross the Bering Strait.
KEN: Right. Here’s a question: Was there possibly some traveling across the Bering Strait bridge from the other direction? I mean from here towards there? I was thinking okay, science finds certain types of tool-making characteristics and then they’ll go, okay, we have these type of arrowheads and points and knives and stuff like that but they don’t find those in Asia, and it makes me think that the people would wonder, “Why do we have that? Why wouldn’t they be an analog for what existed in Asia supposedly beforehand?”
So I got to thinking, well, maybe it isn’t so much people coming our way, speaking from where I am presently in North America, but some of our adventurers of the ancient times utilized that land bridge and actually explored Asia from the other direction.
ELIAS: Yes. You are correct.
KEN: Okay. Cool. Cool.
ELIAS: There is not one way.
KEN: Right. Humans expand. They go out and explore, and…
ELIAS: Yes. Which is also a ludicrous theory, that they would only move in one direction.
KEN: I guess that’s based on the “out of Africa” thing, where everybody started in Africa and then had to just spread out from there, so to speak. And I’ve never forgotten what you said about Pedra Furada, very fascinating. [2] And over the years it’s like I’ll be reading something related to Brazil and I’ll say, “Yep, Elias was talking about that.” (Laughs) Pretty cool, pretty cool. (Elias chuckles)
All right, great. Okay, I’ll jump back to the original what I was talking about, the… I’m not gonna ask you for a crystal ball (Elias laughs), but I’m leaning in that direction. Actually, this is a most probable probability; I’ll just leave it at that. Maybe it’s getting too crystal ball, asking for a timeframe, but my assumption is as time goes on, the probability is that it will be more accepted that tektites are lunar?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay. Okay. It would make me so happy if it happens in my lifetime, because right now lunar meteorites are so precious. And that’s a different thing. That’s where – we discussed that before – where I guess science, generally, the consensus is that an asteroid hits the moon, blasts lunar surface back into space, and… easier done on the moon because of the lower escape velocity. Same thing, it floats around in space, gets attracted by our magnetic field, comes here as a meteorite. Very rare, very expensive.
And I just thought it was so neat that most people presently do not know that you could walk into any lapidary – lapidary? Is that the right term? – lapidary shop and buy a tektite for a few bucks and behold a piece of the moon and not even know it. It would be so fun if more people knew that could… Because the moon is so far away, it would be so fun to have a piece of it.
ELIAS: Ah! But it would be less valuable.
KEN: Oh no, no, I was just talking about monetarily, what would be considered monetarily valuable. To me, they are just as valuable as…
ELIAS: But that is the point, is that then all of those particles from the moon would be less valuable.
KEN: Oh, yeah. That wouldn’t bother me. (Elias laughs) But the romance of it…
ELIAS: (Laughs) It would not bother YOU, but it would bother the other people that are selling them.
KEN: Yeah. Okay, that’s a good point, too. I never thought of the world of finance and marketing applied to this. Okay, that’s cool. (Elias laughs)
ANN: Which may be why, yeah.
JOHN: And it applies to most science, too. (Group laughter)
KEN: Okay. That’s cool. I hadn’t thought of that angle.
Okay, there’s a type of items that fall into the tektite category. One is from Moldavia, I think it’s in Czech Republic, a lovely green stone. And then there’s another kind of clear, semi- or translucent material that’s known as Libyan desert glass. Those are both lunar, correct?
ELIAS: They can be.
KEN: Oh, okay. So they may. Okay.
ELIAS: They can be other particles, not from your planet, but they can be other particles.
KEN: Okay. So I’ll change that question around a little bit then. They would be not of this earth either way, right?
ELIAS: Extraterrestrial.
KEN: Okay, extraterrestrial. Any clues on what origin possibly, or…?
ELIAS: That can vary. In actuality, that can vary considerably, not merely in relation to what you think of as space debris, but generally they are particles that are of what you would term to be another world: a moon, a planet…
KEN: Yeah, what do they…? A planetesimal, or what do they call it? That’s kind of a semi-planet or planetoid or whatever?
ELIAS: Yes, or even actual planets. There is much that you have not explored yet, especially in relation to space. And in that, there is much that you do not recognize yet, that planets dependent upon their gravitational fields, and dependent upon what events occur in relation to a particular planet – which has occurred with your planet also, in past time frameworks – in which certain events may occur and pieces of your planet or pieces of other planets are chipped away and travel through space. And in doing so, they can travel considerably far, in your terms. And it is merely dependent upon how they travel and whether they become caught and pulled into a gravitational field in which they land on different planets, which also include moons.
KEN: Okay. So those are extraterrestrial but not necessarily lunar?
ELIAS: Correct.
KEN: Okay. Cool. Cool. Ponder for a second here… I was going to ask you about, just for my own clarity here, I always get mixed up on this stuff: So, extraterrestrial relates to what we would consider our universe.
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay. But in our universe within our dimension?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay. So parallel dimensions would still be an aspect of our dimension, is that correct?
ELIAS: No.
KEN: No?! Okay. So, (laughs) I’m getting further confused. (Elias laughs) So Atlantis is in a parallel dimension? Is that correct?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Is that a parallel dimension that is within our dimension?
ELIAS: No.
KEN: Oh! Okay, it’s not.
ELIAS: No.
KEN: Okay. That clears something up. I was going off on a wrong – I shouldn’t say wrong, but a – yeah! Yeah, wrong (Elias laughs) direction or just incorrect direction. Okay.
I’m going to throw out this and see: Bashar comes up a lot, which you have described as a translation. Bashar is of our dimension, but a parallel within ours?
ELIAS: No.
KEN: No? Okay. Would you have any clarification…?
ELIAS: Within this dimension.
KEN: Yeah, that’s what I mean…
ANN: But not a parallel.
KEN: No, not parallel, just within this dimension?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: You’ve mentioned that different time periods would be considered a dimension within this dimension?
ELIAS: (Pause) Allow me to clarify.
KEN: Okay, thanks. I need that.
ELIAS: For I am aware of how you are confusing the subject. From the perspective of consciousness, with a lack of separation, even in relation to different dimensions, each physical dimension does incorporate some dimensions within the dimension.
KEN: Okay. Yeah, that’s it. That’s what I need to be clear about.
ELIAS: Now, what that means is that there are other-dimensional expressions or manifestations or even beings that are…
KEN: So like the cousins you referred to? [3]
ELIAS: Yes. That are removed from you. You do not perceive them.
KEN: Right. Right. Except occasionally, when our periphery picks them up.
ELIAS: Correct. They are not participating in your official dimension. Therefore, there is some aspect of separation. They are not the same as what you would think of as another dimension entirely, for they CAN be perceived, for that separation is much thinner.
KEN: It’s still a bit of a veil?
ELIAS: Very much a veil. You do not walk around within your reality and seeing all of these other manifestations daily. You CAN, occasionally, and that would be different from a bleed-through of another dimension that is much more separated.
KEN: Oh, okay.
ELIAS: Now; let me also clarify. These dimensions within the dimension can be very different from your own.
KEN: So that’s what I’m getting confused with other…
ELIAS: They are not necessarily paralleling you. They can be very different. There can be other dimensions that parallel you that are very separate from you.
In this, the difference is a configuration of energy. I have engaged conversation with few, but several, other individuals that have posed questions in relation to other dimensions, not dimensions within this dimension.
KEN: Right. That’s where I get mixed up on this.
ELIAS: Now; the difference is the configuration of energy. In order to penetrate another dimension outside of your own, you must generate a significant reconfiguration of energy. You cannot merely pop in to another dimension.
KEN: Your atomic structure wouldn’t even belong there, right?
ELIAS: Precisely. And in that, the energetic configuration is so different that it would not fit. It would not allow you –
KEN: There’d be a fantastic pull to tear it apart, right? In a sense? Or to…?
ELIAS: The energy would immediately dissipate, or in your idea, it would evaporate. It would disintegrate. Therefore, there must be a significant reconfiguration of energy to generate any type of physical presence in another physical dimension.
Now; in these dimensions WITHIN your dimension, they are separate from you, but the configuration of energy is not so significantly different from your configuration of energy that you can perceive them at times. They can actually mingle and penetrate that separation – and you can penetrate the separation in relation to them also, without having to generate an intentional reconfiguration of energy. You do not have to alter your form to place yourself in one of those dimensions within your dimension; neither do they have to alter their form to insert themselves into your dimension, for the energy is somewhat a part of each other.
KEN: But then of course, like the Roswell incidents, that was literally other-dimensional…
ELIAS: That is alien, which is other-dimensional.
KEN: Yeah. Exactly. It took a considerable reconfiguration to make its presence known here.
ELIAS: Very much so. And in that, it is not sustainable.
KEN: Right. That’s where you talk about the… You mentioned that the bodies are gone.
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: They had an accelerated decomposition-type thing.
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: They’re already gone. I’m assuming, though, that the craft material is still present?
ELIAS: (Pause) Not most of it.
KEN: Oh, okay. Is that just basically kind of like fading out?
ELIAS: Yes. That type –
KEN: I assume the secretive scientists are probably like, “What in the world’s going on? Why is it disappearing? Where is it going?”
ELIAS: Yes. For if there is not a considerable reconfiguration of energy that matches the dimension that you project to, it is not sustainable in a different dimension.
KEN: Eventually it’s going to dissipate, right?
ELIAS: Generally, relatively quickly.
KEN: Right. Right. Okay. One more quickie about… You’re saying Bashar is within our dimension, and many times you refer to what we know of the Bashar phenomena has to do with translations of something. I’m wondering why, even though it’s within our dimension, why the translation aspect? (Elias laughs) That would probably be like 10 hours’ worth of discussion. I don’t know if it can be said concisely, but… (Both laugh)
ELIAS: (Pause) If YOU, in this present moment, today, travelled to another planet outside of your solar system and discovered another planet in which there was sustainable life, in your terms, other beings that inhabited another planet, it would be extremely foreign to you. And in that, the communication would be extremely foreign. And therefore, it would be necessary to translate ANY type of communication.
Now you are engaging an essence that is connected with a manifestation. You are not merely engaging an essence. You are engaging a focus of that essence in a physical manifestation, in a very different manifestation and a different time framework.
KEN: That’s it. The time framework, yeah.
ELIAS: Therefore, there is… (slight pause) enough different components that are being expressed in that energy exchange that it most definitely requires translations for you to understand ANYTHING that it would express to you. And then there is the filter of the channel.
KEN: Okay. That makes more sense now. I was mistaking it for parallel dimensions and dimensions within this dimension, that that was the translation factor, or it was because… and then I thought it was a different time frame, so maybe that had to do with time, time having its own dimensional qualities. That clears it up a lot. That’s great. I appreciate that. I think I understand it more. (Elias chuckles) And if not, I’ll be back for more clarification.
ELIAS: Very well! (Laughs)
KEN: But no, it gives me much to ponder.
Okay. So jumping on a different subject here, you recently have been talking to different individuals and giving suggestions about their stone, like Vivette with the obsidian, etc. So, what’s the Oba stone? Or what’s the Ken stone, I guess?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would express, for you?
KEN: I have an impression. Can I throw it to you first?
ELIAS: You may.
KEN: Peridot.
ELIAS: No.
KEN: No? Okay.
ELIAS: You could use that, …
KEN: Yeah, I love that, because it’s my focus color and…
ELIAS: I would express a combination that in conjunction with each other would aid in balance.
KEN: Oh, I could use that! (Laughs)
ELIAS: A fire opal, and a moonstone.
ANN: Ahh! That’s nice. I like that.
KEN: Cool! I shall procure those. (Elias chuckles) That’s interesting. And speaking of stones, I mentioned the peridot and of course my interest in extraterrestrial objects, a type of meteorite called a pallasite, and the structural composition of pallasite meteorites have all been crystals, which are a peridot. Some of those that end up on earth are of the gem quality peridot and they’re cut into beautiful stones, like people like to cut stones for decorative purposes.
But anyway, so scientifically there is a signature to this peridot that is… Actually I don’t know if it’s an isotopic quality or whatever that it’s provably different, that they know… It doesn’t matter, because they get a lot of meteorites, but if anybody was buying one and wanted to know for sure it was real, they could say this is from outer space, this is the earthly [inaudible].
So peridot has the aspect of it’s related to intuition. Is that what you said about peridot? Is that right?
ANN: I thought inspiration.
KEN: Oh, is it inspiration? I’m sorry. I thought it was intuition. Okay.
ANN: Which I think can be the same thing, right?
ELIAS: Both.
KEN: But primarily you would use the word…
ELIAS: One leads to the other.
KEN: Inspiration would be the main term for it.
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. And any difference in the extraterrestrial peridot? Or maybe that means my inspiration is spacey.
ELIAS: No. It would be enhanced.
KEN: Oh! Cool.
ANN: Nice!
ELIAS: It would express the same quality, but more of it.
KEN: More of it, okay. Cool, cool. That’s good to know. A quick question about… John [Rrussell] would like to know if he is dispersed?
ELIAS: (Slight pause) No.
KEN: No. Okay. And let’s see, where am I at? Oh, okay. Here’s a little fun question. The four essences that fragmented the essence Namboole [sp?], one is my essence, the other is Kimmie’s essence name which she does not like to divulge for her own personal reasons, and the other two is the name Warren and T-S-O-T-Z-E-N, Tsotzen, is that how it’s pronounced? But anyway, Kimmie and I were curious if Warren and Tsotzen were anybody in, generally speaking, our forum or anybody that we know or know of?
ELIAS: Not yet.
KEN: Not yet! Okay. Not yet. So that’s a good clue. So there might be some …
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: …later encounters, which could be either me or Kimmie or any of… the other two would be them. (Both laugh)
This might be okay to ask, a curiosity question because he’s long since decease:. I know you’re not big on stats for celebrities, but is it okay to ask John Lennon’s stats? Or would that be something best left alone?
ELIAS: You can.
KEN: Oh, okay. I just… I know with a lot of celebrities it can get a little tricky. I really don’t have much of an impression. I assume Sumari is in there somewhere. Belonging?
ELIAS: Both.
GROUP: Ah!
KEN: Sumari/Sumari! Cool! Cool! Okay. Let me think… He doesn’t seem common – didn’t seem common.. Well, yeah, he’s still existing, just somewhere else. He didn’t seem common to me. Definitely I’m thinking a soft or intermediate, so I’ll say soft.
ELIAS: Correct.
KEN: Okay, soft. Was he political?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay, cool. Oh! Essence name for John?
ELIAS: (Pause) Shioen (SHARE-en), S-H-I-O-E-N.
KEN: It sounds kind of like an r, but it’s…
ELIAS: Shioen.
KEN: S-H-I-O-E-N? But it’s pronounced kind of like Sharon?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Cool! All right, thank you very much. That’s kind of a fun little curiosity there.
Okay. Let’s see what I’ve got here…. (Pause) In a couple of your recent discussions, participants – I don’t want to get whose session was whose mixed up, you’ll know who I’m talking about – (Elias laughs) were discussing the various stones and you were talking about lapis lazuli. And as soon as you mentioned the properties of lapis as used by the ancient Egyptians – and of course when I use that term, they didn’t refer to themselves as Egyptians; I think they were Kemet or whatever. I like the way you keep away from modern terminology and that you talk about the days of Pharaohs and sand. I like that. It’s a neat way. (Elias chuckles) I love the way you do your terminology to keep things clear, and also it like fits in with a shifty redefinition of terms (Elias laughs), because term-free define affects perception.
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: I’m getting off on a tangent, but anyway… So they were talking about lapis, especially when you were talking about spying. [4] That was so intriguing because I’m such a sleuth, you know? (Elias laughs) I’m a natural-born detective, just for fun. I just love sleuthing, on top of everything else in my interests.
Anyway, so as soon as I saw that about the spying, as soon as I got done listening to that session I was on the hunt. (Elias laughs) And I said, “Okay, I want a lapis, a little piece of lapis.” But I thought, me and my artifacts – I love artifacts – “I want a piece of lapis that was FROM ancient Egypt and it’s an artifact but it’s still a lapis.” Kind of my fun factor, you know?
So I went looking and found this from the… I purchased it. It’s an ibe – “ib” or “ibe,” I don’t know how they pronounce it – heart amulet, very tiny. It’s carved out of lapis and it’s from the first millennium B.C. You were talking with various participants about size of lapis, and of course this is very tiny but I was very attracted to get this anyway, and I’m thinking, “Okay, each individual, what size would be beneficial would depend on the person.” And I thought, “I feel that this is just right for me.”
ELIAS: I would agree.
KEN: Okay, thanks. That’s what I was curious about. (Elias laughs) But at the same time, lapis is… You know, now that I’m so aware of it lately, of how beautiful it is, I’m probably going to go and buy myself another lapis piece.
ELIAS: And what will you do with it?
KEN: Uh… (Elias laughs) I will probably… You know, like you mentioned about the combo of the moonstone and the fire opal? I’ll probably take this piece of lapis and my other one and just utilize them together.
ELIAS: And do what?
KEN: Oh, actually, like I’m already doing with the lapis, I just lay it next to where I sleep. And I’m actually trying not to, because you know me and forcing, I force my energy so much I’m trying to… I was trying to like, “Okay, don’t force your energy so much.” (Elias laughs) So I’m trying not to make too big a deal about it and overcomplicate it. I just lay it next to my bed, and whatever happens, happens. I will tell you, I’m really lazy and I don’t write down my dreams, but if they’re really weird I remember them anyway. And my dreams have been all over the place, bizarre dreams I’ve started to have. So I’m thinking that possibly could be some affectation of the…
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: …stones, and…
ELIAS: You are not –
KEN: …as far as spying, I haven’t really tried looking at it. (Ann laughs) Actually I was never really thinking about my contemporaries, I was more thinking about spying on – since time is simultaneous – spying on ancient Egypt itself.
ANN: That’d be fun.
ELIAS: You could.
KEN: Okay. That’s what I thought. And I’m just going to let it happen. I’m not going to try to force it. I know at some point that I’ll just start having dreams that either will be translations of Egypt or be being there or whatever – or something that even though it’s contemporary might be like that’s just how I configure the imagery but it’s really having to do with something taking place in the past, and just take it from there and see what happens. A little creative play.
ELIAS: It may be quite fun for you to investigate. And have you considered engaging the method?
KEN: Actually, I’m not sure I did. Is that something you discussed, the method for doing that? I’m a little foggy on that. Do you want to update me on that?
ELIAS: I would express that it would require a bowl, a stone bowl.
KEN: Oh! You mean the steaming? Oh, okay, I do remember that. Okay. I think, yeah…
ELIAS: Stone or silver.
KEN: Excuse me?
ELIAS: Stone or silver.
KEN: Oh, the bowl: stone or silver. Okay.
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay.
ELIAS: And incorporate the stones and the steam, and watch the steam as it moves. And as you watch the steam as it moves, you can blow or you can fan – gently – the steam in a particular direction that you designate as your target.
KEN: Oh, okay. That’s pretty cool.
ELIAS: And that…
KEN: The target can even be in the past, right?
ELIAS: Yes!
KEN: Okay.
ELIAS: And that directs the energy of the stone outside of itself.
KEN: Oh! Cool, cool. The temperature of the water, is that significant? How hot does it have to be? Like coffee? Hot coffee water? I’m saying that because my niece has an instant thing, a dispenser where instantly I can get hot water.
ELIAS: Not boiling.
KEN: Okay. But that’d be hot enough to burn you if you put your finger in it – or I mean be painful.
ELIAS: Not necessarily that hot.
KEN: Oh, okay.
ELIAS: Merely enough to generate a gentle steam. Not a tremendous steam, not a boiling steam, but a gentle steam that you can see physically but is not concentrated. For in that, it incorporates too much water.
KEN: Oh, the steam would be the water properties and it would be taking away from the properties you really are trying to visualize, or… ?
ELIAS: The water accumulation in a heavy steam or a thick steam is excessive, and that weights the energy. And therefore, it nullifies what the stone can achieve. Therefore, you want to generate a light steam, enough that you can see it but not one with a heavy water concentration.
ANN: When you say direction of target, could be like a representation, like a picture of the target?
ELIAS: It can be.
KEN: Oh! Good idea. Cool.
ELIAS: Yes. Yes. Or it can be merely a designation. Therefore, before you engage the ritual, you express, “I designate this corner as my target area, or my target time framework,” or “I designate this direction and this particular area as my target destination.” And in that, you are setting the intention beforehand, and that directs in the ritual the energy, your energy and the stone, and that allows you to generate what you are intending to do. And that can produce a visualization without other aids, such as other substances that would generate what you term to be hallucinations. This merely opens a door for visualizations, which allows you to spy.
ANN: And any kind of stone bowl?
ELIAS: (Pause) Not limestone. But other than that, it matters not. Granite would be excellent. A hard stone. It does not require a thickness in the bowl.
KEN: It just has to hold the water, correct?
ELIAS: And be of a consistency that it would allow it to steam.
KEN: Right. Right. It would have this opening... I’m imagining something that would be the equivalent of cup cans or something like that.
ELIAS: You could.
KEN: Okay.
ANN: You could spy in the future, too, right?
ELIAS: Yes, you can.
KEN: Oh, okay. We’re getting some fun stuff here!
ANN: I know!
KEN: And I was thinking, how about even other dimensions?
ELIAS: You could.
KEN: Okay. This is…
ELIAS: It is merely a matter of setting the intention of your target.
KEN: Right, right.
ELIAS: And in that, designate a physical area as your target area, in which the steam can travel to that area.
ANN: And that lapis arrow that I bought, would that work for this purpose, or does it have to be a certain type of lapis?
ELIAS: No. You could use that.
KEN: Yeah. That’s perfect.
ANN: [something about spying] (Elias laughs)
KEN: Okay. That’s exciting. (All laugh) Oh, can you give us a brief… an assessment for fun of just like, presently – it’s probably been going on forever – of the interest in stones lately, and all the different types of crystals and stones and whatnot. It seems to be kind of a popularity thing that’s blossoming lately. And of course, we have certain friends that have been into it, like Kathleen is really into it; she has always been into stones. And certain people in the forum, it seems like a lot of the forum’s really getting into stones.
ELIAS: And beyond.
KEN: Right.
ANN: Yeah.
ELIAS: Not only yourselves. Many, many, many individuals are incorporating interests in stones presently. And what I would express to you? It is a resurgence in the interest of magic.
[The timer for the session rings]
KEN: Okay.
ANN: I love magic.
KEN: I like that.
Okay, we’ve got about a minute here. I think I’ve covered everything. Let me see, I just want to make sure I didn’t leave anything out. [To Ann] Are you going to ask the Ebola thing?
ANN: No. [Inaudible] (Elias chuckles)
KEN: I’ll look over all these real quick. Oh! Yeah, a real quickie here. There’s a guy named Brien Foerster. This fellow has what I would refer to as a couple of fascinations. One is with different ancient cultures where they have elongated skulls. I already asked you about this in the past, I mean recently, and I assumed that that was why in ancient times there was experimentation with efficient human form, and that was just one of the experimentations. I think you agreed with that?
ELIAS: Yes, and also experimentations and alterations which you continue to do to this day –
KEN: Oh, you mean like the bindings and the…
ELIAS: – in different capacities in relation to what you perceive as attractive or beauty.
KEN: Oh, okay. That makes sense because there are… A lot of people say, like, “No, it’s strictly binding that was done for a cosmetic purpose.” That would probably the newer times, but in the earliest times it would be experimentation with efficient body structures?
ELIAS: Yes.
KEN: Okay. And there’s another thing, too. Down in Peru there seem to be shapes cut out of stone, these very kind of symmetrical, geometric kind of… You know, like there’s a boulder and there’ll be these little perfect shapes cut out of it. And I’m still wondering what in the world is all that about? Because it’s hard to tell what that would be for, because I was thinking was it art work, was it ritual, or was that like a dimensional marker that those… ? You know, how a crop circle can be a… ?
ELIAS: Not a marker.
KEN: Not a marker. Okay. So that was just a…
ELIAS: No.
KEN: They’re for the purposes that I don’t understand presently of people in the past, why they did that. Are there any clues on why they did that?
ELIAS: Not for a function.
KEN: Not for a function. So it would be more artistic, then?
ELIAS: In a manner of speaking. And yes, –
KEN: And maybe having to do with rituals and…
ELIAS: Yes. Yes.
KEN: Okay. That makes sense. Okay, I’m good! Thank you very much.
GROUP: Bye! Nice seeing you again.
ELIAS: I shall be anticipating our next meetings, and I offer tremendous encouragement to each of you in your spying, in your explorations, in your discoveries… [Audio cut off after 1 hour 8 seconds]
Footnotes:
[1] Session 201410251, full group session from previous day
[2] Session 72
[3] Session 482
[4] Session 3240
Copyright 2014 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.