I was literally thinking about the Cs when I was watching some of the videos on the mudslides in California. I think this was the session that references it:
[quote author=Cs session]
26 Nov. 1994
.........Q: (L) Well, let's not denigrate literal translations or at least attempts to get things into literal terms. I like realistic art work. I am a realist in my art preferences. I want trees to look like trees and people to have only two arms and legs. Therefore, I also like some literalness in my prognostications.
A: Some is okay, but, beware or else "California falls into the ocean" will always be interpreted as California
falling into the ocean.
Q: [General uproar] (F) Wait a minute, what was the question? (L) I just said I liked literalness in my
prophecies. (F) Oh, I know what they are saying. People believe that California is just going to go splat and that Phoenix is going to be on the seacoast, never mind that it's at 1800 feet elevation, it's just going to drop down to sea level, or the sea level is going to rise, but it's not going to affect Virginia Beach even though that's at sea level. I mean... somehow Phoenix is just going to drop down and none of the buildings are going to be damaged, even though its going to fall 1800 feet... (T) Slowly. It's going to settle. (F) Slowly? It would have
to be so slowly it's unbelievable how slowly it would have to be. (T) It's been settling for the last five million
years, we've got a ways to go in the next year and a half! (F) Right! That's my point. (T) In other words, when people like Scallion and Sun Bear and others say California is going to fall into the ocean, they are not saying that the whole state, right along the border is going to fall into the ocean, they are using the term California to indicate that the ocean ledge along the fault line has a probability of breaking off and sinking on the water side, because it is a major fracture. We understand that that is not literal. Are you telling us that there is more involved here as far as the way we are hearing what these predictions say?
Q: (T) Are we understanding what you are saying?
Q: (T) So, when we talk about California falling into the ocean, we are not talking about the whole state literally falling into the ocean?
A: In any case, even if it does, how long will it take to do this?
Q: (LM) It could take three minutes or three hundred years. (T) Yes. That is "open" as you would say.
A: Yes. But most of your prophets think it is not open.
Q: (J) Yeah, because they think they have the only line on it. (T) Okay. So they are thinking in the terms that one minute California will be there and a minute and a half later it will be all gone. Is this what you are saying?
A: Or similar.
Q: (T) So, when we are talking: "California will fall into the ocean, which is just the analogy we are using, we are talking about, as far as earth changes, is the possibility that several seismic events along the fault line, which no one really knows the extent of...
A: Or it all may be symbolic of something else.
Q: (L) Such as? (J) All the fruitcakes in California are all going to go off the deep end together. (L) Symbolic of
A: Up to you to examine and learn.
Q: (L) Now, wait a minute here! That's like sending us out to translate a book in Latin without even giving us a
A: No it is not. We asked you to consider a reexamination. [/quote]