[truthseeker]

Hi Folks,

I think Clark raises some excelent points here about sources and predictions.

I like St. Clair's take on astrology (I am a keen student of astrology myself). However, I was never convinced of his predictions regarding McCain and Palin. To be honest I am glad he has been proved wrong. I do not see Palin as enlightened despite having a large stellium of planets in Aquarius. Aquarius is not all good. It is a fixed sign and like all fixed signs (the others being Taurus, Leo and Scorpio) it can present as someone who is stuck in their ways and finds it difficult to change their outlook. To my mind you can not determine a persons worth merely by their astrological chart. One has to take into account genetics, culture and personal history as well, though all these areas should also be reflected in the birth chart to some degree. Each sign and planet (here including the Sun and Moon) can be interpreted on a variety of different levels, depending on where a given individual is at, in their life. Additionally, we each of us have free will. An astrological chart does not take this away from us. Sometimes a harmonic and problem free looking chart can actually lead to the individual taking for granted their inherant potential and, for that very reason, they do not bother to make the effort to fulfil that potential. I think astrologers should be very careful about making specific predictions. There are so many different ways in which a certain set of planetary alignments can manifest, whether that be for a person, group or nation. Having said that it is probably a little easier to make astrological predictions for larger group entities, such as nation states than it is for individual souls like you and I.

I found St.Clair's recent short radio interview very poor. Why doesn't he just admit he got it wrong. For me this has undermined his credibility somewhat.

As for Bill Deagle, well I was not convinced by his horrific predictions, especially after watching him in interview with Kerry and Bill. I think he is stating things as he sees them and that he is being as truthful as he can about his sources. However, I have grave doubts about the reliability of same. Also, he seems too tied into a biblical-type of prophecy, despite his claims of not presenting a religious view. So I had to take his predictions with a pinch of salt.

The HPH predictions are less specific, so it may be that the process predicted did start in early October. We certainly are seeing the worst financial situation since 1929. This time, though it is much bigger and is world wide. So I keep an open mind on the HPH material.

Dan Burish very definitely talks about changing timelines in his looking glass material. So maybe he is right that with Obama now elected as president, we are in a very differnt time line. So at the moment I am giving Burish the benefit of the doubt. Of course the timeline argument is a great excuse for any unfulfilled prophecy or prediction, so it is hard to know what the truth is really. David Wilcock certainly seems to support Burish's ideas.

As Clark said, Wilcock does seem to have come out of it all with his credibility still intact, at least at the moment. He was certainly right about Obama winning th election. However, the real test for Wilcock will be whether Obama performs as Wilcock expects, by beginning to break away from the old way of doing things. I really have grave doubts that Obama will prove any better than his predecessors. However, nobody can be as bad as Bush, can they?

With regard to Alex Collier, I have seen the videos. Whilst I do not think he is a liar or a fraud, I would say much the same for Collier as I would for any individual that is a channel (including Deagle and Wilcock), a contactee (including Billy Meier) or whatever (e.g. Michael St.Clair, who states he is neither a channel or a contactee). I ask this of all of them. How reliable is your source? Just because a source comes from etheric, extraterrestrial, extradimensional or afterlife domains, does not mean it is either reliable or telling us the truth. It may have its own agenda, which is not in the best interests of humanity. The sincere and honest channel or contactee is merely the instrument that the source uses to present its message. Add to this the potential distortions of the message through the messenger (e.g. the personal beliefs and bias of the channeller or contactee), then one can potentially find all sorts of confusing and contradictory information being presented. So it would certainly appear to be the case that none of Collier's Andromeda predictions, as clearly mentioned in his 1996/7 video, appear to have manifested. So again, we must question the accuracy and reliability of the source. I am sure that Collier himself is completly honest and sincere, though I do wonder how he explains the failure of those predictions to manidfest. Perhaps its that time line thing again?

Anyway, the bottom line here for all of us is not to beleive everything we hear, regardless of its source. Practice discernment and discretion. Look within your heart for the truth, not outside yourself.

That my take on things anyway.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker