Observations--discussing the Elephant in the Room

[kevin]

Memory,
All memory fields interact symbiotically with all other memory fields.
The dominant memory ( THINK of shape shifting) requires most flow content, hence the planet requires vast memory( gravity as it implodes into the heart centre via the poles as it circulates each hemisphere.
Everything within the dominant memory field remembers to be, or not to be ( that is the question)
as it is supplied symbiotically as the flows circulate, and switch on'off at the rate of where they are located within that memory ( hence why certain materials should be left where they are at rest )

Nuclear devices release the compressed memory flows, that enable materials to remember to switch on'off relatively the same ( nothing exists countless times a second, and resets if the flows enable it to)

Kevin

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Memory,
All memory fields interact symbiotically with all other memory fields.
The dominant memory ( THINK of shape shifting) requires most flow content, hence the planet requires vast memory( gravity as it implodes into the heart centre via the poles as it circulates each hemisphere.
Everything within the dominant memory field remembers to be, or not to be ( that is the question)
as it is supplied symbiotically as the flows circulate, and switch on'off at the rate of where they are located within that memory ( hence why certain materials should be left where they are at rest )

Nuclear devices release the compressed memory flows, that enable materials to remember to switch on'off relatively the same ( nothing exists countless times a second, and resets if the flows enable it to)

Kevin

hmmm..getting closer
question: WHAT is "memory"?
"the ability to remember to be, or not to be"?...or is the ability to remember, the result of memory?

dancing around the Elephant, poking it with some sticks

memory...connection to the Source, the One that created the physical realm?
or...connection to some other "field"?
or..."imprinting'?

and..how is memory "created"?

Nancy

[wags]

There is no need for a 'creator' to explain anything, as it results in the ultimate question who or what created the creator.

[Nancy_Hutchison]

There is no need for a 'creator' to explain anything, as it results in the ultimate question who or what created the creator.

wags,
Let's explore that statement.
When I look at this physical realm, I see things that have been created.
Amazing systems. Intelligent design.
I look at other "animals" and compare to hu-mans.
We do a lot of creating. Some animals build, some animals "teach" their young.
An "eco-system" of symbiotic relationships.
All part of this amazing uni (multi) verse.
The evidence of a creator screams at me.

I look at a cell, and think, "wow, whoever designed this is far above my skill level."
Scientists will pick, poke, take apart and reorganize cells.
But..create a living cell? from "scratch"?
Maybe they have accomplished creating a living cell. I don't think they have created a mammal, from scratch.

You may be correct, that if we say there is a creator, then we need to ask, "who made the creator".
The Jesus dude said, "If you want to understand the creator, then study the creation."

If we understand the creator, will we then understand how the creator "came to be"?
Does the fact the we hu-mans create far more than any other species on this planet indicate that we are "an extension of the creator"??

WHAT is MEMORY?

Nancy

[Mikado14]

You are absolutely correct Nancy, we are from different paradigms. To include me in the same sentence as Linda and Steve Clarke I find unbelievable. I don't see what you are saying and would appreciate a better explanation as to that which makes us the same.

To answer your question about reading links in one of your previous posts, the simple answer is yes, the complicated answer is not all of them. I was cross checking statements made in scientific papers with information in the links to make an informed answer and not one based upon nothing more than what I felt which is more than I can say for a good deal of what I read from posters who make definitive statements on such feelings and nothing but feelings. I stopped doing so when I got involved in building a circuit for you et al and then I was going to be terminated at the Token so I decided that there was no need to continue. I had other more pressing issues in my life than to provide a basis for a scientific paper for your work which more than likely you wouldn't have appreciated in the end for there are those that want facts and proof otherwise there would be no atheists or agnostics which you have recently mentioned. Both of those are correct just as every other group who claims the existence of God/god for none of them can prove anything which happens to be the cry of all of them. Perhaps all of them are more scientific than others for they all want the "white paper". Who knows, who cares, I mention only for example and not for discussion of such.

Although I listen to kevin and believe he is talking about what he sees and senses, unfortunately and rightly so, it is not acceptable to main stream science. I have no doubt that he is experiencing something. I find he uses words and established definitions that merely end up confusing the issue. That is the rub.

You say things about me without knowing me, so, here is a post from the old forum that I made to show kevin that he was not alone. People experience "things" but it becomes difficult to describe and to find words. That is where science needs to step in to some measure. Someone who understands both is what is needed.

http://www.ttbrown.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 685#p12685

I learned a long time ago that people ridicule that which they do not understand, it is their defense mechanism, it makes them feel better and offers solace to them but it is not truth.

Truth is what anyone in science wants but your method is not going to make it in mainstream science. I could give a reason why but it will only lead to arguments and I don't want to argue, that is why I haven't come back at you in regard to the Knights Templar. You thrive on arguments, I do not.

I learned from formal education the manner in which to present proof in an acceptable manner so as to be accepted by the mainstream. I did this to understand and learn and most of all, to try to explain that which I saw and did not understand.

Perhaps that is the real elephant in your room.

I gave you a private place to discuss with kevin. You want to make it public, no problem. I will delete the private thread since it is not needed.

Mikado

[wags]

Nancy,

I cannot answer all your questions and for much the same reasons as Mikado has so eloquently just posted.

There is out there rational explanations to many of the questions you have posed. I gather you are not formally educated in any of the sciences and I would though recommend you actually read Darwin's original 'Origin of Species' which explains in a very readable and logical way how he arrived at evolution. He is a good writer and the most diligent of scientist. He explains what the flaws were in 1859 (No genetics) but it is a good read in any case.

Intelligent design has not been demonstrated to date.

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Mikado,

Neither Kevin nor I have asked you to delete the private thread.
I was thinking that private thread could serve a purpose in the future.

It appears to me that you are wielding a hammer, an act of emotion, by deleting the private thread.

Perhaps I have not been clear in my previous writings.
I am fully aware of, and have successfully operated in presenting "acceptable evidence and proofs".
Since living with John Hutchison, I have had to learn a different mode of thinking.
I am 100% positive that John will never present evidence in the manner that you (and many others) demand it to be presented.
Repeatedly, through what I have observed from other scientists who have interacted with John, who have "written the reports", they had to drop their paradigms and make the effort to understand John's thought processes.

You and I disagree with what the Elephant in the Room "is".
I believe the Elephant in the Room is "us". "Us" and this thing we call the physical realm.
And we cannot even begin to bring a picture together of the Elephant, until we understand and accept the each of us speak from different paradigms.

Does John have a complete picture of the Elephant? no
Does Nancy? no
Does anyone? no

Mikado,
You have a unique perspective. From my (very) limited knowledge of your situation, you had a near death experience?
Each of my four children had also done so, but I have not. You and they may have a better understanding, something that transcends words.
Something it would be difficult to write a "white paper" about.
Unless you had others around you during the near death experience, others that were recording and "taking readings" and creating a "scientifically approved experiment" .... all that is available to share....is your observations. Observations that are difficult to put into words.

I typed what I said above, to illustrate to you that each person has something valid to bring to the discussion.
And if the information does not meet "scientific criteria", that does not necessarily negate the information.

I wish you Peace.
And I hope to learn from you, and your observations.
Please try to not get offended by my observations.

Nancy

[kevin]

Mikado 14,
Said,
Kevin "uses words and established definations that merely end up confusing the issue"
I agree, it's a problem seeing has I have a very limited amount of words anyway.

Memory is a formation of sounds within the perfectly packed and geometrically formed near solid of universe.
They remember due to becoming locked within specific geometries that are fundemental to the structure of universe.
Basically in the beginning will have been a sound, that sound will have filled the universe and reverberated back into the source.
Kevin

[Mikado14]

Mikado,

Neither Kevin nor I have asked you to delete the private thread.
I was thinking that private thread could serve a purpose in the future.

It appears to me that you are wielding a hammer, an act of emotion, by deleting the private thread.

<snip>
Nancy

Nancy,

Here is a perfect example of observations being wrong when confronted with the truth.

Am I wielding a hammer? By your observations I am. By what I go through to service this site, no.

A unique thread that is password protected takes up space and is located on the front page of the "forums" section in the admin part of the site. Every time I prune the threads and perform maintenance, I have to reenter the password and protect it again. I need to do this every time a backup copy is made of the forum in the event of loss. Perhaps there is an easier manner to perform this but I stick to what I know and what works.

Now, my time is valuable. My comment about deleting the thread was referencing a post you made in that there was a private place to talk with kevin but you felt it would be beneficial to have it public. With that statement made by you, no one else but you, why should I continue to maintain a thread?

Sorry to disappoint you but your observation is wrong. Any other observations wrong?

Mikado

[wags]

I do not know if this is a correct interpretation of Kevin's hypothesis but I think it may be a description of the Universe in 4D where Time is a physical.

If one takes a single atom and trace it's journey one could say it is not a single finite atom as we perceive it, but a long thread. Time is relative and we cannot observe all things at the same time. for example a star like beetleguese has probably gone Super Nova, but from here it still exists.

It is a short step from what Kevin is trying to describe. The spiral stuff still eludes me though.