God is using everyone's Masonic ties for good, just as he uses the evil intents of ten Israelis for good (Gen. 50:20). And yes, I count credible evidence that a person has taken a secret oath as a "strike" meaning a grain of salt to be taken as seasoning in their presentation. There are some horrid secret oaths out there, but even many legal NDAs that are comparatively innocuous have the same problem. A human should be accountable to swear in public what he has sworn in private, or public swearing becomes jeopardized (like "swearing on a stack of Bibles", which Obama literally did, long story there). And yes, there's evidence that Masons got an influx of power in that period around 1800.
Now the only reason I brought that up was that if I get two of my red flags right next to each other, it's only fair for me to let you know I find those two a significant (not necessarily probative) part of the evidence, even if you disagree with my holding. The research itself stands or falls on its own, and since I've already given many objections to it separately I was trying a different method in this thread and seeing what I could affirm; but I thought it necessary to give you fair warning of what I saw. For that reason I'm not going to go into the evidence about events over 6,000 years ago, because it's not a matter of likes but of objective analysis that I've already published. I just said that Washington and Carlson and Muhammad should be judged on the whole of what they did, and if the judgment is that one made one mistake and another made many mistakes then that's not a double standard, because it's based on the whole of the evidence.
Nor did I associate any of this with you except for light allusion to your credulity, which is your own decision and not someone else's.
TLDR: Good sources are determined by the whole of their testimony in word and action, as any conspiracist should agree.
To return, I think the point ought to be that there's no problem with regarding God's symbol of bull, ram, fish, man (and the others) as significant primary indicators, nor with regarding his earth-shaking events as aligning with beginning of Taurus, end of Taurus, and beginning of Aquarius (garden, flood, tribulation rapture). This might inform why Carlson wants to see in the selected data other conjunctions with eight cardinal points in the precession cycle. But I reserve the right to say "Lincoln's secretary wasn't Kennedy" when the joke goes too far. And when we get to predictive power, I should have said the model predicts either extinction of civilization and perhaps life, or nothing happening different, or mass awakening to greater reality. And that's like the doctor who predicts the disease will either get worse, stay the same, or get better. So I seek models with the greatest explanatory and predictive power ....
This evidence pattern says, if accurate, that at some cusps there's nothing, at some cusps there's destruction of civilization, and (you infer from I don't know what) at some cusps there's awakening. NCSWIC. That's why I get my preparation orders elsewhere.
Honestly man I don't have an interest even in running questionable pyramid talk in the background for 4 hours. I believe I did skim this video once already. When I direct people to long videos (as if ever), I give them quotes and timestamps because it's so easy to do. (In fact I should apply it to myself and add more styling and pull quotes to my own long typing.) So finding the prep talk or the good bits here isn't high priority for me (you are high priority for me as a brother, not your sources); but I still have the tab open.
The thing is though, when you present something I don’t already agree with (e.g. CDK), I’ll follow your links in an attempt to understand. It just feels like when you follow my links, it’s an attempt to “debooonk”/cover the source in so many grains of salt as to make it easily dismissible.
You probably don’t see it quite like that. You probably don’t perceive me as as open-minded as I perceive myself. Idk, just putting that out there.
God is using everyone's Masonic ties for good, just as he uses the evil intents of ten Israelis for good (Gen. 50:20). And yes, I count credible evidence that a person has taken a secret oath as a "strike" meaning a grain of salt to be taken as seasoning in their presentation. There are some horrid secret oaths out there, but even many legal NDAs that are comparatively innocuous have the same problem. A human should be accountable to swear in public what he has sworn in private, or public swearing becomes jeopardized (like "swearing on a stack of Bibles", which Obama literally did, long story there). And yes, there's evidence that Masons got an influx of power in that period around 1800.
Now the only reason I brought that up was that if I get two of my red flags right next to each other, it's only fair for me to let you know I find those two a significant (not necessarily probative) part of the evidence, even if you disagree with my holding. The research itself stands or falls on its own, and since I've already given many objections to it separately I was trying a different method in this thread and seeing what I could affirm; but I thought it necessary to give you fair warning of what I saw. For that reason I'm not going to go into the evidence about events over 6,000 years ago, because it's not a matter of likes but of objective analysis that I've already published. I just said that Washington and Carlson and Muhammad should be judged on the whole of what they did, and if the judgment is that one made one mistake and another made many mistakes then that's not a double standard, because it's based on the whole of the evidence.
Nor did I associate any of this with you except for light allusion to your credulity, which is your own decision and not someone else's.
TLDR: Good sources are determined by the whole of their testimony in word and action, as any conspiracist should agree.
To return, I think the point ought to be that there's no problem with regarding God's symbol of bull, ram, fish, man (and the others) as significant primary indicators, nor with regarding his earth-shaking events as aligning with beginning of Taurus, end of Taurus, and beginning of Aquarius (garden, flood, tribulation rapture). This might inform why Carlson wants to see in the selected data other conjunctions with eight cardinal points in the precession cycle. But I reserve the right to say "Lincoln's secretary wasn't Kennedy" when the joke goes too far. And when we get to predictive power, I should have said the model predicts either extinction of civilization and perhaps life, or nothing happening different, or mass awakening to greater reality. And that's like the doctor who predicts the disease will either get worse, stay the same, or get better. So I seek models with the greatest explanatory and predictive power ....
Oh, you’ve finished watching the videos I’ve linked?
Or is it like the scientist who says “the evidence pattern indicates there will be earthquakes soon, but if you prepare then you can minimize the senseless loss of life” who then gets silenced/ignored for retarded reasons?
This evidence pattern says, if accurate, that at some cusps there's nothing, at some cusps there's destruction of civilization, and (you infer from I don't know what) at some cusps there's awakening. NCSWIC. That's why I get my preparation orders elsewhere.
Honestly man I don't have an interest even in running questionable pyramid talk in the background for 4 hours. I believe I did skim this video once already. When I direct people to long videos (as if ever), I give them quotes and timestamps because it's so easy to do. (In fact I should apply it to myself and add more styling and pull quotes to my own long typing.) So finding the prep talk or the good bits here isn't high priority for me (you are high priority for me as a brother, not your sources); but I still have the tab open.
Dawww, thanks big guy, and likewise.
The thing is though, when you present something I don’t already agree with (e.g. CDK), I’ll follow your links in an attempt to understand. It just feels like when you follow my links, it’s an attempt to “debooonk”/cover the source in so many grains of salt as to make it easily dismissible.
You probably don’t see it quite like that. You probably don’t perceive me as as open-minded as I perceive myself. Idk, just putting that out there.