@jesuscrikey Yes, that's what makes it hard for me to believe he's just making it up. He never misses a beat. He always has a clear and concise answer to whatever question is asked.
Static sequence, perfectly said. Sequence in motion or unfolding is the changing of the static sequence. The sequence in its constant whole state is a standing wave and the unfolding of sequence utilizes the standing wave as frequency. The comfortable paradox. Much appreciation for the expressions here. Beautiful.
5:05, Higher frequency would "NOT" skip more frames of static reality. A higher frequency would have a shorter wave length therefore within the same context of time you would experience MORE static frames, skipping less. This is all contingent on the speed of a particle expressed in frequency by a self propagating oscillative charge. The speed remains constant unless you change the density of the media by which the frequency is traveling. Bashar seems to have mis-spoken in this case.
I believe what Bashar is saying and everytime I hear this, I feel better.
You just don't fabricate this stuff and consistently lie. And the more I watch this more and more I am coming to the belief that he is TRULY and ABSOLUTELY channelling from Bashar, whom has back back in time to tell us, and, MORE IMPORTANTLY , to remind us, that all our goodness exsists within ourselves.
@LaPersonaNonGrata Darryl Anka's Bashar is a character. The concepts which are brought to the table are intresting and detailed, but they don't lend themselfs well to skeptical inquiry. His phrasing is overly complicated, which "in a sense" adds to the mysticism. I gather most of the folks who buy in to this stuff are "what you would call" gullible. He may have sprinkled some truth amongst his wording, but this hardly makes it note worthy as a channeling from a being of "higher frequency."
@McGeeRF So, are you calling me gullible? I only try to believe in good things and omit the negativity. There's already too much negativity on this planet, why not listen to things that are of a positive nature. I don't always understand what Bashar says because how he words concepts - and his lexicon is a bit complex - but I take the things I do get and apply them to my life as much as possible. That's all. Peace.
@LaPersonaNonGrata Don't let me rain on your parade, just take a few college classes in physics, philosophy, world religions, and sociology. What happens is alot of what Bashar is saying will become painfully transparent. Be well, enjoy his message for what it is.
@McGeeRF Understandable, unless you listen to a whole lot more. like i did. then you reach a certain point and you say to yourself...... ok i get it. i suggest torrents if you cant afford the dvd's etc. Once i get the money I will buy the entire series, i have a thirst for this kind of information ;-) if people dont want to believe because they dont think the information will benifit they're lives, i can only respect them, and they're free will of choice.
@McGeeRF i take it ur not in some kind of organized religion right? because I gather most of the folks who buy in to that stuff are "what you would call" gullible. point is whatever works for someone to make them a better person is what really matters, whether its what bashar has to say or anyone else has to say, anything u believe or have knowledge of someone else has told u or u read somewhere, but ppl believe what they feel to be right in their own heart including you my friend. peace! =-)
@brycehoff I'm not a fan of psudeo scientific philisophical babbling. Problem here is the reference by which Bashar's advice comes from is rooted in sophisticated analogies which don't actually make real scientific sense. In short its a side show. I don't subscribe to belief based soely on what I "feel" because feeling is too subjective. I also do not like to use the word belief to express my position on any subject. "Belief is based in ignorance" You pose a hypocrital assumption at my expense.
@McGeeRF so then u don't believe anything? or u just believe what can be proven by science? because science itself; more so quantum mechanics says that once u go down far enough reality as we know it doesn't make sense. do u "believe" your a conscious being? again science says u have no way of proving that, so not everything can be proven by science and science says it cant explain everything.
@McGeeRF the biggest miracle in science "the big bang theory is based on belief, something that came from nothing. that's why its a theory. most of science is based on theory's. unified field theory, string theory, Darwin's theory of evolution, The Theory: The Copenhagen Interpretation, need i go on? none of which can be proven true. most of science doesn't make scientific sense if it did u wouldn't have so many theories in science, u would have only one consciences and not different opinions
@McGeeRF so tell me then what hypocritical assumption am i posing at ur expense? when u say "I also do not like to use the word belief to express my position on any subject. "Belief is based in ignorance" u contradict yourself because even if u believe something that science proves to be true "its still a belief" its something u believe.
@brycehoff You assume scientific knowledge is based in belief, and you project your belief clause against my position. You hypocritically try to turn the table arround by presumtuioulsly labeling my position as a position of belief. In this way you attempt to position both our stances on the subject on the same playing field. The expense is my character and my integrity. Scientific known fact about frequency is not based on belief, it is based on measurment. High frequency has a short wavelength
Mathematicians try to negate the validity of supernatural experiences and phenomena. They say that many apparently supernatural experiences are simply coincidences mistaken for something unique. They cite experiences had by many people as being illegitimate.
However, no scientist can altogether eliminate the possibility of a true numinous experience from occurring. Just because something is unlikely or scientifically unverifiable, does not mean that
Moreover, scientist merely interpret interpretations. That is, they DO NOT measure or quantify the actual experience. They nomothetically measure and quantify the consequences, afterthoughts, and opinions, of the experiencer. They compare and contrast an experience with other of a similar kind.
However, all experiences of a numinous nature are subjectively interpreted. No true, or wholly relevant, objective statement can be made. There is only Subjective Truth.
Here's 5 that cannot be scientifically proven but we accept
logic & mathematical truths can not be proven by science, science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them with science would be arguing in circles.
Metaphysical Truths, like there are other minds other then my own, or that the external world is real or that the past was not created 5mins ago with an appearance of age, are rational beliefs that can not be proven by science.
@McGeeRF Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method, you cant show by science whether the Nazi scientist in the camps did anything evil as apposed to the scientist in Western Democracy,
Ascetic judgements can not be accessed by the scientific method, because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.
And finally most remarkably would be science itself, science cannot be justified by the scientific method, science is permeated with
@McGeeRF unprovable assumptions, for ex. the Special Theory of Relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B, but that simply cannot be proven, we have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.
So none of these beliefs can be scientifically proven and yet they are accepted by all of us and we are rational in doing so. i just gave u 5 examples where scientific knowledge is based on belief
@brycehoff The speed of light has been measured, let me help you on this one. If a photon could travel faster then its measured speed of 3.0X10 to the 8 meters per second in a vaccum, then we would have long observed it to do so. Ex. Gamma Rays which have many magnitueds of order more energy than light rays travel at the same speed. The only thing presumed to travel faster then a photon, is a neutrino. If its faster, its just bearly faster; and well within the uncertainty of not being faster.
@McGeeRF I do however agree that high frequency has a short wavelength, but what im saying is just because something can't be proven by science doesn't make it any less credible, and u still didn't answer the question. You said belief is based on ignorance, ive shown you how ignorant science can be. But do you "Believe" you are a conscious being? there obviously can be one answer, even if u put no its still a conscious choice. So then does that mean ur jus as ignorant as the rest of us?
@brycehoff Everyone is ignorant at some level, the greater the ignorance of the individual the more they can be taken advantage of by slick sounding psudo scientific babble. Your in to Philosophy, yet you dont seem to follow one of the most basic premises of it. Socrates espoused the gaining of knowledge as the first step toward a philisophical life. Science IS Knowledge. One can not use science out of context to strengthen their philosophy; it actually weakens it profoundly. Is this not clear?
@McGeeRF yet another good rebuttal. i suppose we could continue but i will throw in the towel, im sure we can have this great on going debate for awhile, its been very stimulating and its always fun to talk to another intellectual that knows what they are talking about instead of just mindless rambling. I hope the same sentiment is shared even though the opinions differ. I do see the points u have made and they are very strong. thanks again for the conversation... and to u good day
@McGeeRF I also take back my sentence where I said "i just gave u 5 examples where scientific knowledge is based on belief" I miss quoted myself, my apologies... But "mathematics is the basis for much scientific knowledge" and yet it cannot be proven by science. so again to try to prove it would be arguing in circles. and im sorry im not trying to undermined your character or integrity. ur very logical and intellectual, and it actually has been a pleasure having this experience with u
@brycehoff Science does not prove mathematics, the premise of your argument is a non-starter. Mathematics is a fundimental tool that science uses to describe and predict observed phenomina. If you observe some causal relationship between two objects and make measurment of this interaction, you can then provide a mathematical equation which describes the causer and the result of thier interaction. Observation, equation, prediction. Good scientific theory is capaplbe of making accurate predictons.
@McGeeRF but again u have to use theory and as good as that theory may be its still something that cannot be proven, theory is an idea. We can all agree I hope that science is always evolving, what was "Scientific Knowledge" 20yrs ago is not scientific knowledge today and what is scientific knowledge today will undoubtedly not be so 20yrs from now. when I went to school we were told the Atom was the smallest partial, yet today we know otherwise. I do not discount however that science has
@brycehoff Scientific Theory is an explination of behavior based on facts. As Science progresses more facts are ammased therefore some finer points in the theory may alter due to added information. However, in most cases good solid scientific theory is capable of making predictions of behavior. It is the predictions which lend themselfs open to skeptisicm. This is where we have competing theories, which is perfectly fine, this is why we have the peer review. The answer will eventually be found
@McGeeRF fundamental truths, I'm actually a fan of science; Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Sacred Geometry, Philosophy, the study of Consciousness. these things fascinate me and I would consider myself a very logical person, you might think other wise, but I do know that science cannot account for everything. There are things that u urself must "Believe" whether u like to use the word or not that science cant account for. Again u must think ur a conscious being right?
@brycehoff Science does not account for the "super natural." Your changing subject but ok, belief is used when sufficient evidence is lacking to propose a position. Belief gets thrown arround too much; but in the case for science I like to use the word confidence in lieu of belief. Confidence is based upon evidence and or the plausability for a particular explination to describe observed phenomenon to include but not limited to predicting outcomes. I know I am a conscious being.
@fntime The fact concerning wavelength and frequency, simply contridicts what Bashar is suggesting about his "illusion of motion." The suposed skiped frames of reality. Motion can not exist apart from time. Operating at a higher frequency can only be obtained by more total energy in, coupled with an inescapable consequence of more latent heat. These higher frequency modes of reality could be otherwise obtained by walking in to a large microwave oven. I've never observed a phase shifting potato.
@brycehoff Science does not account for the "super natural." Your changing subject but ok, belief is used when sufficient evidence is lacking to propose a position. Belief gets thrown arround too much; but in the case for science I like to use the word confidence in lieu of belief. Confidence is based upon evidence and or the plausability for a particular explination to describe observed phenomenon to include but not limited to predicting outcomes. I know I am a conscious being.
@brycehoff You assume scientific knowledge is based in belief, and you project your belief clause against my position. You hypocritically try to turn the table arround by presumptuously labeling my position as a position of belief. In this way you attempt to position both our stances on the subject on the same playing field. The expense is my character and my integrity. Scientific known fact about frequency is not based on belief, it's based on measurment. High frequency has a short wavelength.
@bthegood I've had more than a few people I've told of him tell me that they think he's scamming, etc. For my own perspective, I personally believe that whether he's actually channeling or not is totally irrelevant. To me, what matters is the knowledge being imparted. The Man is laying down some serious cosmic wisdom that everyone can learn from.
So far as my own beliefs as to whether he's being accurate, I believe he honestly is channelling an extraterrestrial entity. Either way, love always!
@bthegood ive seen all his vids that i could find on youtube even the ones he did in the 80s early 90s, where it shows random ppl asking him questions and him answering them without hesitation, and some of the things he said back then science is now proving correct, and he himself says that u dont have to believe that hes channeling an extra dimensional being but to focus on what he says. i for one believe what he say it makes since to me and is logical
My little third density brain has a challenge comprehending this particular material in this video. Chock full 'o physics here. I would enjoy attending a dance on the ship over Cairo. I can tell Bashar and company are not all work and no play. Bet they can bust a move . .
I couldn't help but laugh really hard when he impatiently said yes. "alright alright yes yes yes alright yes yes yes alight YES", 1:45 XD "HIIISSSSS YEESSS!." He says yes 54 times, yes, I had a lot of the illusion of time on my hands. -YES
I have seen this demonstrated in Ki Aikido...the student makes figure of 8 with sword so fast it looks like a blur...teacher says, half it, then half it again...half by half by half, so the sword appears to move slowly...and the student can be dis-armed
one fo the best!!!!!
jjchac06 2 days ago
sup Bashar. i think you answer everyone's questions.
LovinLearnin 1 month ago
Doesn't everyone here think Bashar has a great wealth of clear knowledge??
jesuscrikey 1 month ago
@jesuscrikey Yes, that's what makes it hard for me to believe he's just making it up. He never misses a beat. He always has a clear and concise answer to whatever question is asked.
Starbat88 1 month ago
it is said that flys can perceive movement as slower, so that they can easily evade a dropping hand.
does the time go by slower for them, too? and is it their ability to process the frames at a faster pace?
Kalatiso 1 month ago
this blows my mind!
Kalatiso 1 month ago
Static sequence, perfectly said. Sequence in motion or unfolding is the changing of the static sequence. The sequence in its constant whole state is a standing wave and the unfolding of sequence utilizes the standing wave as frequency. The comfortable paradox. Much appreciation for the expressions here. Beautiful.
professormaxtrinity 5 months ago
I personally don't care whether ET or not, I just like the info :)))
Agui007 5 months ago
Bashar may be simply channeling from his Higher Self - meaning a Self that exists in a higher reality.
redlotus888 6 months ago
Hands up if this kind of learning is a "daily" / every-moment occurrence for you nowadays.
InfiniteOneOfficial 8 months ago 3
5:05, Higher frequency would "NOT" skip more frames of static reality. A higher frequency would have a shorter wave length therefore within the same context of time you would experience MORE static frames, skipping less. This is all contingent on the speed of a particle expressed in frequency by a self propagating oscillative charge. The speed remains constant unless you change the density of the media by which the frequency is traveling. Bashar seems to have mis-spoken in this case.
McGeeRF 9 months ago
I believe what Bashar is saying and everytime I hear this, I feel better.
You just don't fabricate this stuff and consistently lie. And the more I watch this more and more I am coming to the belief that he is TRULY and ABSOLUTELY channelling from Bashar, whom has back back in time to tell us, and, MORE IMPORTANTLY , to remind us, that all our goodness exsists within ourselves.
LaPersonaNonGrata 10 months ago 3
@LaPersonaNonGrata Darryl Anka's Bashar is a character. The concepts which are brought to the table are intresting and detailed, but they don't lend themselfs well to skeptical inquiry. His phrasing is overly complicated, which "in a sense" adds to the mysticism. I gather most of the folks who buy in to this stuff are "what you would call" gullible. He may have sprinkled some truth amongst his wording, but this hardly makes it note worthy as a channeling from a being of "higher frequency."
McGeeRF 9 months ago
@McGeeRF So, are you calling me gullible? I only try to believe in good things and omit the negativity. There's already too much negativity on this planet, why not listen to things that are of a positive nature. I don't always understand what Bashar says because how he words concepts - and his lexicon is a bit complex - but I take the things I do get and apply them to my life as much as possible. That's all. Peace.
LaPersonaNonGrata 9 months ago
@LaPersonaNonGrata Don't let me rain on your parade, just take a few college classes in physics, philosophy, world religions, and sociology. What happens is alot of what Bashar is saying will become painfully transparent. Be well, enjoy his message for what it is.
McGeeRF 9 months ago
@McGeeRF Understandable, unless you listen to a whole lot more. like i did. then you reach a certain point and you say to yourself...... ok i get it. i suggest torrents if you cant afford the dvd's etc. Once i get the money I will buy the entire series, i have a thirst for this kind of information ;-) if people dont want to believe because they dont think the information will benifit they're lives, i can only respect them, and they're free will of choice.
traida111 6 months ago
@McGeeRF i take it ur not in some kind of organized religion right? because I gather most of the folks who buy in to that stuff are "what you would call" gullible. point is whatever works for someone to make them a better person is what really matters, whether its what bashar has to say or anyone else has to say, anything u believe or have knowledge of someone else has told u or u read somewhere, but ppl believe what they feel to be right in their own heart including you my friend. peace! =-)
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff I'm not a fan of psudeo scientific philisophical babbling. Problem here is the reference by which Bashar's advice comes from is rooted in sophisticated analogies which don't actually make real scientific sense. In short its a side show. I don't subscribe to belief based soely on what I "feel" because feeling is too subjective. I also do not like to use the word belief to express my position on any subject. "Belief is based in ignorance" You pose a hypocrital assumption at my expense.
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF so then u don't believe anything? or u just believe what can be proven by science? because science itself; more so quantum mechanics says that once u go down far enough reality as we know it doesn't make sense. do u "believe" your a conscious being? again science says u have no way of proving that, so not everything can be proven by science and science says it cant explain everything.
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF the biggest miracle in science "the big bang theory is based on belief, something that came from nothing. that's why its a theory. most of science is based on theory's. unified field theory, string theory, Darwin's theory of evolution, The Theory: The Copenhagen Interpretation, need i go on? none of which can be proven true. most of science doesn't make scientific sense if it did u wouldn't have so many theories in science, u would have only one consciences and not different opinions
brycehoff 5 months ago
Comment removed
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF so tell me then what hypocritical assumption am i posing at ur expense? when u say "I also do not like to use the word belief to express my position on any subject. "Belief is based in ignorance" u contradict yourself because even if u believe something that science proves to be true "its still a belief" its something u believe.
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff You assume scientific knowledge is based in belief, and you project your belief clause against my position. You hypocritically try to turn the table arround by presumtuioulsly labeling my position as a position of belief. In this way you attempt to position both our stances on the subject on the same playing field. The expense is my character and my integrity. Scientific known fact about frequency is not based on belief, it is based on measurment. High frequency has a short wavelength
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF Objective vs. Subjective Experience
Mathematicians try to negate the validity of supernatural experiences and phenomena. They say that many apparently supernatural experiences are simply coincidences mistaken for something unique. They cite experiences had by many people as being illegitimate.
However, no scientist can altogether eliminate the possibility of a true numinous experience from occurring. Just because something is unlikely or scientifically unverifiable, does not mean that
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF it has not occurred.
Moreover, scientist merely interpret interpretations. That is, they DO NOT measure or quantify the actual experience. They nomothetically measure and quantify the consequences, afterthoughts, and opinions, of the experiencer. They compare and contrast an experience with other of a similar kind.
However, all experiences of a numinous nature are subjectively interpreted. No true, or wholly relevant, objective statement can be made. There is only Subjective Truth.
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF Everything else is interpretation.
Here's 5 that cannot be scientifically proven but we accept
logic & mathematical truths can not be proven by science, science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them with science would be arguing in circles.
Metaphysical Truths, like there are other minds other then my own, or that the external world is real or that the past was not created 5mins ago with an appearance of age, are rational beliefs that can not be proven by science.
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method, you cant show by science whether the Nazi scientist in the camps did anything evil as apposed to the scientist in Western Democracy,
Ascetic judgements can not be accessed by the scientific method, because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.
And finally most remarkably would be science itself, science cannot be justified by the scientific method, science is permeated with
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF unprovable assumptions, for ex. the Special Theory of Relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B, but that simply cannot be proven, we have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.
So none of these beliefs can be scientifically proven and yet they are accepted by all of us and we are rational in doing so. i just gave u 5 examples where scientific knowledge is based on belief
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff The speed of light has been measured, let me help you on this one. If a photon could travel faster then its measured speed of 3.0X10 to the 8 meters per second in a vaccum, then we would have long observed it to do so. Ex. Gamma Rays which have many magnitueds of order more energy than light rays travel at the same speed. The only thing presumed to travel faster then a photon, is a neutrino. If its faster, its just bearly faster; and well within the uncertainty of not being faster.
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF I do however agree that high frequency has a short wavelength, but what im saying is just because something can't be proven by science doesn't make it any less credible, and u still didn't answer the question. You said belief is based on ignorance, ive shown you how ignorant science can be. But do you "Believe" you are a conscious being? there obviously can be one answer, even if u put no its still a conscious choice. So then does that mean ur jus as ignorant as the rest of us?
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff Everyone is ignorant at some level, the greater the ignorance of the individual the more they can be taken advantage of by slick sounding psudo scientific babble. Your in to Philosophy, yet you dont seem to follow one of the most basic premises of it. Socrates espoused the gaining of knowledge as the first step toward a philisophical life. Science IS Knowledge. One can not use science out of context to strengthen their philosophy; it actually weakens it profoundly. Is this not clear?
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF yet another good rebuttal. i suppose we could continue but i will throw in the towel, im sure we can have this great on going debate for awhile, its been very stimulating and its always fun to talk to another intellectual that knows what they are talking about instead of just mindless rambling. I hope the same sentiment is shared even though the opinions differ. I do see the points u have made and they are very strong. thanks again for the conversation... and to u good day
brycehoff 5 months ago
Comment removed
brycehoff 5 months ago
@McGeeRF I also take back my sentence where I said "i just gave u 5 examples where scientific knowledge is based on belief" I miss quoted myself, my apologies... But "mathematics is the basis for much scientific knowledge" and yet it cannot be proven by science. so again to try to prove it would be arguing in circles. and im sorry im not trying to undermined your character or integrity. ur very logical and intellectual, and it actually has been a pleasure having this experience with u
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff Science does not prove mathematics, the premise of your argument is a non-starter. Mathematics is a fundimental tool that science uses to describe and predict observed phenomina. If you observe some causal relationship between two objects and make measurment of this interaction, you can then provide a mathematical equation which describes the causer and the result of thier interaction. Observation, equation, prediction. Good scientific theory is capaplbe of making accurate predictons.
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF but again u have to use theory and as good as that theory may be its still something that cannot be proven, theory is an idea. We can all agree I hope that science is always evolving, what was "Scientific Knowledge" 20yrs ago is not scientific knowledge today and what is scientific knowledge today will undoubtedly not be so 20yrs from now. when I went to school we were told the Atom was the smallest partial, yet today we know otherwise. I do not discount however that science has
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff Scientific Theory is an explination of behavior based on facts. As Science progresses more facts are ammased therefore some finer points in the theory may alter due to added information. However, in most cases good solid scientific theory is capable of making predictions of behavior. It is the predictions which lend themselfs open to skeptisicm. This is where we have competing theories, which is perfectly fine, this is why we have the peer review. The answer will eventually be found
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF fundamental truths, I'm actually a fan of science; Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Sacred Geometry, Philosophy, the study of Consciousness. these things fascinate me and I would consider myself a very logical person, you might think other wise, but I do know that science cannot account for everything. There are things that u urself must "Believe" whether u like to use the word or not that science cant account for. Again u must think ur a conscious being right?
brycehoff 5 months ago
@brycehoff Science does not account for the "super natural." Your changing subject but ok, belief is used when sufficient evidence is lacking to propose a position. Belief gets thrown arround too much; but in the case for science I like to use the word confidence in lieu of belief. Confidence is based upon evidence and or the plausability for a particular explination to describe observed phenomenon to include but not limited to predicting outcomes. I know I am a conscious being.
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@McGeeRF Sounds good in theory, but I have found 'scientist'
can be caught up in their paradigms. I have no antagonism
toward scientists, but often they are as intransequent as
the religious 'fundementalists'.
All of us get 'thrown' off course by our own mindset.
Einstein experienced this with quantum physics.
When new info is in contradiction to our 'mind program'
it's often rejected or the 'system' can crash leading
to depression, a physical experience we avoid.
fntime 1 month ago
@fntime The fact concerning wavelength and frequency, simply contridicts what Bashar is suggesting about his "illusion of motion." The suposed skiped frames of reality. Motion can not exist apart from time. Operating at a higher frequency can only be obtained by more total energy in, coupled with an inescapable consequence of more latent heat. These higher frequency modes of reality could be otherwise obtained by walking in to a large microwave oven. I've never observed a phase shifting potato.
McGeeRF 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brycehoff Science does not account for the "super natural." Your changing subject but ok, belief is used when sufficient evidence is lacking to propose a position. Belief gets thrown arround too much; but in the case for science I like to use the word confidence in lieu of belief. Confidence is based upon evidence and or the plausability for a particular explination to describe observed phenomenon to include but not limited to predicting outcomes. I know I am a conscious being.
McGeeRF 5 months ago
@brycehoff You assume scientific knowledge is based in belief, and you project your belief clause against my position. You hypocritically try to turn the table arround by presumptuously labeling my position as a position of belief. In this way you attempt to position both our stances on the subject on the same playing field. The expense is my character and my integrity. Scientific known fact about frequency is not based on belief, it's based on measurment. High frequency has a short wavelength.
McGeeRF 5 months ago
Really really really good! Great questioning, great clear answers! I've just shifted ;-)
flyingdogcoco 10 months ago
It would be great if Bashar could give us an explanation about time slips.
Agui007 1 year ago
I can't believe there are people that think Darryl Anka can make this stuff up and he is a scam artist.
bthegood 1 year ago 17
@bthegood I've had more than a few people I've told of him tell me that they think he's scamming, etc. For my own perspective, I personally believe that whether he's actually channeling or not is totally irrelevant. To me, what matters is the knowledge being imparted. The Man is laying down some serious cosmic wisdom that everyone can learn from.
So far as my own beliefs as to whether he's being accurate, I believe he honestly is channelling an extraterrestrial entity. Either way, love always!
FiendishBass 10 months ago
@bthegood ive seen all his vids that i could find on youtube even the ones he did in the 80s early 90s, where it shows random ppl asking him questions and him answering them without hesitation, and some of the things he said back then science is now proving correct, and he himself says that u dont have to believe that hes channeling an extra dimensional being but to focus on what he says. i for one believe what he say it makes since to me and is logical
brycehoff 5 months ago
sense
brycehoff 5 months ago
Blimey this is heavy stuff, but absolutely fantastic.
maskcdesign 1 year ago 2
I am in appreciation.
Hicluster 1 year ago
Who is asking these questions? I would like to pick there brain... good discussion
xXR0CK5TARXx 1 year ago 2
Who is asking these questions? I would like to pick there brain...
xXR0CK5TARXx 1 year ago
My little third density brain has a challenge comprehending this particular material in this video. Chock full 'o physics here. I would enjoy attending a dance on the ship over Cairo. I can tell Bashar and company are not all work and no play. Bet they can bust a move . .
breezyvibe 1 year ago
@gaztanshana Yep, it's from A matter of faith
ToniEvora 1 year ago
somebody show me a step by step method on how i can skip this frame of my life...
theiceman74 1 year ago
I couldn't help but laugh really hard when he impatiently said yes. "alright alright yes yes yes alright yes yes yes alight YES", 1:45 XD "HIIISSSSS YEESSS!." He says yes 54 times, yes, I had a lot of the illusion of time on my hands. -YES
HEIBAOSHEN 2 years ago
omg i knew it !
12astile 2 years ago
Love it. Have thought thinks like this myself and thought maybe I was just kookoo. Now I know I am! Fucking fascinating!
BlackoutDOTcom 2 years ago 3
One of these:
A Matter of Faith
Beyond the Secret
Accelerating E.T Contact
Probably the first, but I'm not sure
plague613 2 years ago
@plague613 That's why it'd be so much more beneficial to get full broadcasts.
LazyOtaku 8 months ago
@LazyOtaku I agree, you can get the full recordings on bashar . org :)
plague613 8 months ago
I have seen this demonstrated in Ki Aikido...the student makes figure of 8 with sword so fast it looks like a blur...teacher says, half it, then half it again...half by half by half, so the sword appears to move slowly...and the student can be dis-armed
sweeetly 2 years ago
love the inquiry - thank you!
Lokahibodyworks 2 years ago 3
Very very revealing for me. Thankyou!
robrec0rd 2 years ago 10