The dead shall rise :) Santos Bonacci,Sin & Salvation

[ohm1969]

Video from : www.youtube.com

Can't get the link to post,please help someone if you can.
Lawful Awakening: Sin and Salvation. Santos Bonacci Part One
Well worth a watch.Very revealing.
Peace

[ohm1969]

"My philosophy is not to have a boss"

[harvy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BObrQGUtjkw

Can't get the link to post,please help someone if you can.
Lawful Awakening: Sin and Salvation. Santos Bonacci Part One
Well worth a watch.Very revealing.
Peace

ohm1969

go2 the Latest News Headlines page & click the first post by getoutofdebtfree (jon), the 30 second video- please watch. If not still working, then i'l post it later

Harvey

[Libertas]

I agree that the Jesus story is just a rehash of other old fairy tales. The amount of "saviors" born on 25th December with a star to show the way and three kings, blah, blah. I also agree that the tale is more to do with egyptian sun worship rather than the standard Christian faith that people are lead to believe...But, at the end of the day they are all old fairy tales based on mans study of the seasons over time, and nothing more. I completely lost all interest in what this chap had to say when he asserted that the planets had different "vibrations" that effect us. What a crock of shite. And then to go on and say that this is real science. Total rubbish and completely irresponcible. If he could give me a scientific study that has been carried out that explained what these "vibrations" are, what powers them, how the "vibrations" are measured, and a scientific study of the effect that these "vibrations" have on a human being. Then I may give him more credence, but I doubt it.
Some people are good at talking even though they don't say anything worth listening to.
I for one will only listen to anything that is based on substance and can be proved.
This most definetely is not science, it is pseudoscience. or to put it plainly, bullshit.

[harvy]

i can't show you the matrix, you have to see it for yourself

[Libertas]

i can't show you the matrix, you have to see it for yourself

Yes, just like GOD, the tooth fairy and the troll that lives under the bridge.

[Goldberry]

...I completely lost all interest in what this chap had to say when he asserted that the planets had different "vibrations" that effect us. What a crock of shite. And then to go on and say that this is real science. Total rubbish and completely irresponcible. If he could give me a scientific study that has been carried out that explained what these "vibrations" are, what powers them, how the "vibrations" are measured, and a scientific study of the effect that these "vibrations" have on a human being. Then I may give him more credence, but I doubt it....


...I for one will only listen to anything that is based on substance and can be proved.
This most definetely is not science, it is pseudoscience. or to put it plainly, bullshit.

I started listening to Santos a short while ago and find it very hard to find fault in what he has to say. He is a nice chap to pass an e-mail to and he will answer with vigure. He has the attitude of a man that loves his studies. I pointed out to him that he was stating something that could be misconstrued as something else, and he just took it in his stride as 'yes..thats right' and moved on. A proper pro that one never sees today. But thats just who and what he is.

There have been many studies into the power of a 'vibration' or an item holding a 'something that is beyond that of understanding', look at remote viewing for instance. A short while ago it was pooh poohed, but has gained scientific ground over the last few years. What Santos and others are saying is that these (not remote viewing) should not be overlooked when one diognoses a problem or series of facts to form a whole.

One experiment that spings to mind but which name is beyond me at present, is the one done with negitive and positive symbols and lettering on containers containing water. In a nutshell it runs thus; (and all scientifically) One places two water containers on a surface. One container has the word 'love' printed on its side. The other has the word 'hate'.

The one with love on it lasts longer. The one with hate on it will go 'off'' sooner than the 'control' cup that has nothing printed on it. Go figure. Other tests includ the formation of ice christals. Guess which container has the pretty looking ice?

Another, and more 'vibration' orentated experiment is with sand on a plate of flexible 'material' like sheet metal or glass. We must have all seen that one by now. It points out, in simple terms, that certain sounds, will dictate certain shape to the sound wave form if met with resistance. The sounds follow the 'octave' rule and therefore can be predictable in what shapes manifest themselves. If a simple shape can start to rock a bridge to bring it down (failure) then how much more a simple vibration or 'sound' from the sun or the other bodies, given to us as 'waves' of energy to manifest a predictable reaction?


There are many other folk out there that have other shit to add to the mix, that to say it is unsubstanciated is to say that all that other stuff 'means' nothing.


nelly.

[harvy]

2nd that nelly

[Libertas]

Putting sand on a streched film over a loud speaker and watching the sand form along the areas of natural resonance and harmonics (I've studied sound waves for 30 years) of the film is not the same as stating that the planets have diffent vibrations that effect us. This is a whole diffent kettle of fish. The only thing that connects the two is the word "vibration", that is it.
Please tell me the frequencies of these planetary vibrations that effect us and how the study of said vibrations was carried out. If it is being stated that the planets have vibrations that effect us, then the individual who makes such claimes MUST produce the evidence of their statement. Otherwise this is just pseudoscience, and cannot be taken seriously.
I'm sure he is a very nice chap, and that he has much good knowledge. But lets not go down the road of believing EVERYTHING someone says without pulling it appart ourselves first.

Personally I prefer to use "current era" rather than common era as it makes more sence to me, BCE (before current era) CE (current era)

[Goldberry]

No, you are right, its not the same as far as visual simarlarities is concerned but it is the same as far as what is going on in any particular stage of octive is concerned. But you did ask for a science behind the ideas. It would be up to you to now understand the science behind how the earth has its own resonance, and rather than diss the idea, would search for all the facts. There is a ton out there but I dont have to be convinced. I understood the notion years ago and have moved on, and incorporating those facts into my understanding has freed my mind to other things.

I am not here to point to a particular site or u-tube, but you will find them out there.

If I were to try and make a forty yr old man understand why we use a song rather than a poem at christmas, it would be pretty much hard going as the man already has a preconception of his own. I can explain the science (psuedo science ) behind the psyci, but it would be hard for hin to grasp my own preconceptions, and after me trying for a while to find the journals and doc. Papers on the 'inner man' or some other psychiatric terms that I use to make him understand, I still might not sucseed.


I think you need to find out for yourself.


nelly