Things Ramtha wears sells for lots of money. 20 grand for boots. 10 thousand for nasty cheap robes on the RSE website. Auctioned off. They are not even nice. Like spa robes.
I was told this Chinese lady once got a very holy robe for Ramtha to wear with real gold in it. He is pictured in it sold in many framed photos in the QC. You know the one. Eyes closed. When it was worn, he burnt it and stained it with wine. Making it more valuable in some eyes.
Back to my point. I think its funny how Ramtha is mass marketing his clothes. And he doesnt even have to wear them, he has now a brand of terrycloth robe. And they still sell.
A few people know I am not into Ramtha anymore. I asked about an event, the one with the scientist speaking a few days ago. I was told that the scientist questioned the school and questioned chanelling. When I asked for more, I was told, oh you will hear it from someone else!
I have better things to do than follow what Ramtha is teaching. Now I follow it for different reasons. But I wonder at who would stand up in front of RSE and say publicly they question. ANyone know what happened?
I remember when JZ started wearing those stupid R hats with the torn fronts that sold for 45 dollars at qc, or the R cards that came out as soon as card mapping became all the rage selling for 20 dollars a pack. Those pictures of her in the gold robe in a 5 by 7 sell for 17 dollars. If that place doesn't open your eyes to the hypocrisy and greed nothing ever will. She definitely has a willing clientele that spends outrageous sums on anything she touches. So much for not worshiping her eh?
Thanks again for the insight Vanilla.
The July 2011 Yelm assay event featured keynote speaker Dr. Brian Greene (string theory) on July 4 and Rev. G. Gordon Allen (near death experience) on July 5.
I would love to know what was said. There isn't much posted on on RSE's own web site regarding Dr. Greene's presentation. That follows RSE's pattern of selective memory, usually not recalling things that contradict, "Ramtha's," perspective on doomsday and quantum befuddlement. You can bet that if Dr. Greene had said anything remotely supportive, it would have been featured on RSE's web site as yet more evidence of what an amazing being, "Ramtha," is. About all we know is the Song, Across the Universe, by the Beatles was played. (Presumably with appropriate royalties paid. )
Interesetingly RSE is feauring a link to Dr. Greene as well as NASA and other US government links related to disaster preparedness. What happend to the UFOs, gray men and the other rafts of co-conspirators? Taking advice from the government now, are we?
JZ Knight's personal web site has a press release stating that Dr. Greene spoke. Knight's web page re-state's Dr. Greene's personal bio, but doesn't say much specific about the talk he gave in Yelm: http://www.jzknight.com/2011/07/dr-bria ... e-to-yelm/
- David McCarthy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2596
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
- Location: New Zealand
Your RSE supportive post along with the "Ramtha" quotations have been moved in full to the RSE supporters forum.
This is the only place on EMF where you are welcome to post and debate the merits of RSE from an RSE supporter perspective of Dr. Greene or JZK/Ramtha.
'EMF' Message Board • View topic - THE LAST STREAM yes I watched Dr. Greene
If you wish to continue the debate thread topic.
Thank you for respecting our EMF posting guidlines
Seriously, thank you, also, very much for your contribution to my thread topic 'The Law of Attraction.....etc.'. Yours was another contribution that, for me, was 'spot on'.
If u are still waiting for your bag of money after 21 years of blowing and it hasnt come, well, its time to pack up the excuses and say, This doesnt work.
To clarify an important point, much in modern physics is difficult to separate from philosophy, and arguments of philosophy are probably as old as civilization itself. There is much disagreement between physicists about the nature of quantum mechanics. As quantum mechanics matured in the 1950s and 1960s, problems arose with the modern views of John Stewart Bell and others fitting with the established Einstein-Podolksy-Rosen model.
Bell published his pivotal article in 1964: Bell, John. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics 1 3, 195-200, Nov. 1964
This laid the groundwork for many scholars to take up a post-Einsteinian view of quantum mechanics. Bell’s Theorem opened the door for acceptance of quantum entanglement that Einstein had dismissed as (translating from German), “Spooky action at a distance.” Even now, some persons hold Einstein-Podolksy-Rosen as the correct interpretation. I feel this discussion from 2005 is a good exposition of the pros and cons:
http://luttrellica.blogspot.com/2005/10 ... tance.html
The consequence of Bell’s theorem is that action at a distance, non locality, is quite possible, even necessary. In short, two particles separated by a vast distance may behave as a single entity, reacting instantaneously to a stimulus, despite the fact the particles have a non zero mass.
Engineers, more pragmatic than caught in staid philosophy, believed that practical application of entanglement is made possible by Bell’s Theorem. Application of entanglement in cryptography makes use of laser emissions of entangled photons to transmit data. Non repudiation and integrity assurance of the data is possible because the photons in the data stream behave as Bell’s Theorem predicts. I am inclined to say that we have proof, albeit perhaps non-rigorous, through construction of real world practical devices that Bell was correct, and that an Einstein-Podolksy-Rosen view is not sufficient to describe the universe.
Reference QM cryptography: http://spie.org/x38723.xml?ArticleID=x38723
Now, let me reiterate my thesis of my previous posting that the RSE use of the quantum entanglement phenomenon is flawed. Please refer to Luttrell (link above). RSE suggests that quantum theory supports its brand (I use the term literally, as in trade marked) of metaphysics, suggesting telekinesis, remote viewing and time travel are possible. It just doesn’t work. The problem is there has to be a, something, that establishes the entangled nature of the system in the first place. It is not possible is to manifest a gold coin out of Fort Knox, Kentucky onto one’s kitchen table in Yelm, Washington merely by thinking about it; there is no preexisting causal relationship. RSE is engaging in is if A implies B, then B implies A thinking. Sorry, it does not work here. An entangled system may project instantaneous action at a distance, reacting to a stimulus. The converse does not occur that action at a distance can cause a system to become entangled.
A very erudite dissertation to be sure, Ockham, and quite clear on how the school has taken bona fide scientific theory and warped it to fit their own particular groove.
I humbly suggest though that you take your own advice, and if you wish to call WE sophomoric, perhaps that would best be reserved for a PM.
Great dissertation on quantum entanglement, by the way.