Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Working with a board-type instrument is both a very positive thing as well as problematical. In the early sessions, as I have noted, we were not taping, so reconstructing them was done based on scribbled notes and memory. Sometimes, those notes were being written in my lap with one hand, while the other hand was on the planchette! On better occasions, there was a sufficient number of people present that one of them could devote their attention to taking notes. But this produced its own problems as the reader will see.
With a board and a moving planchette that has not yet been fully "tuned," it is often difficult to determine if a "stop" indicates a cessation of flow in the transmission, or if it is designating a letter or sign on the board. I tried to faithfully call out all apparent letters, numbers, or stops, whatever they might appear to be, and often had to "cancel" the call because it became apparent that it was only a pause and not an indication of a letter or number. To add to this problem, if a third party was taking the notes, they would often misunderstand what was being called out, or transpose letters, numbers, or misplace decimals if they were given, and otherwise unintentionally contribute to the loss of fidelity of the material. It was only quite a bit later in the process, after many hundreds of pages had been received, that we began to work with ways to increase our accuracy in recording both via tape and handwritten notes. As with anything, practice improved performance.
There was another curious problem that the many people who have sat in on sessions have experienced first hand. I would warn them, but they really didn't have any idea of what I meant until they experienced it for themselves. Everybody has a tendency to want to "anticipate" a word or phrase - to complete it according to what they think it will be once they have heard the first couple of letters. Sometimes this is helpful and speeds up the taking of notes, but more often than not, the "anticipated" word ended up being incorrect, the person taking the notes would have to switch mental gears in mid-word, after having already written the wrong word, and would then entirely lose their place and fall behind, rushing madly to catch back up with the letters being called out. This would only compound the problem. Our notebooks are FULL of crossed out "anticipated words" and loss of context because the person taking the notes tried to think ahead of the C's, made an incorrect assumption, and fell behind or rushed to catch up, leaving out entire words or letters. In some cases, a word was written in anticipation, and even though a different word was spelled out on the tape, the incorrect word was left because that is what the individual "heard."
At the same time, we were very anxious to get the transcripts typed up just for the simple reason that we wanted to read them as soon as possible, and thus, many of these errors were included in the original typescript, along with standard typos, all of which require enormous work to weed out.
At the present moment, the Cassiopaean transcripts consist of 634 pages, set up in 3 columns in 10 point ariel font. This equals 699,056 words, 122,719 lines, and 3,742,197 characters. And I can guarantee you that I typed nearly every word of it, with later help from Jan when she and Terry were finished with their project of sorting material by subject matter.
There are some people who look upon our attempts to go back and discern where these errors occurred, or even to try to discern the true intent of the earlier sessions, or obviously skewed sessions, based on later information that was clearer, more precise, and being transmitted at a point in time when the static and other difficulties were more fully understood and dealt with, as some sort of maneuver to "misrepresent" what the C's have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that such critics certainly have made no years-long efforts to produce anything similar of their own, upon which foundation they might have the right to consider themselves some sort of "expert."
As we have repeatedly said, it is our project, and we have the right to determine how we analyze the data, evaluate the results, re-test that which does not stand up, and make those corrections and addenda that are deemed necessary based upon our long experience in "translating." This is, in fact, the deeper issue concerned with channeling and doing the work necessary to penetrate to the deeper levels of understanding. I understood from the outset that what I was trying to do had seldom, if ever been done. And it must be clear from the very outset that the idea was mine, the theory behind how it worked was mine, the drive to do it was mine, and the driving force stimulating any participation from anyone else, was mine. And most of the time, I worked against enormous resistance, obstructions, and through hardships that would have stopped about everyone on the planet; and that is not an exaggeration.
Recently I came across the work of Professor Douglas Robinson at Ole Miss, a professor of English, and an expert in translation. I was surprised to discover that translation was a science, with experts and theory. But I was gratified to learn that some of the ideas I had about channeling related directly to "translating," and that someone was considering these problems far more thoroughly and competently than I was. What was even more surprising was that Prof. Robinson had suggested outright that an analogy can be drawn between the function of a translator and the channel or medium. It is the work of the channel - as - translator to use every means available to convey the fullest intention of the original author to a new audience that might never hear it because they do not know the language. Prof. Robinson points out that, in the ordinary sense, translation is done merely across linguistic or cultural barriers, but when channeling is involved, it is done across temporal, consciousness, or even hyperspatial barriers.
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours
a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our
existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek
to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable
or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if
not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
You are visitor number 7202 since April 16, 2009[TextCounter Fatal Error: Could Not Increment Counter].