"Christian von Lahr, Msc.D." and Michael Jackson

[kaleidoscope]

I logged on to see what C2C listeners thought about this Christian von Lahr "channeling" Michael Jackson. I went to von Lahr's website and it's full of the usual appalling dreck. Any thoughts? Or did most of you have better things to do last night than listening to this schmuck?

This was the last Saturday late night for me and Ian. I just can't take any more!

[EvB]

I logged on to see what C2C listeners thought about this Christian von Lahr "channeling" Michael Jackson. I went to von Lahr's website and it's full of the usual appalling dreck. Any thoughts? Or did most of you have better things to do last night than listening to this schmuck?

This was the last Saturday late night for me and Ian. I just can't take any more!

While I didn't expect that von Lahr would "imitate" Jackson's voice - I DID expect that there would be verbal quirks of speech, phrases and such. (Or, I should say - I'd expect that if a voice was channeled - von Lahr is so strange that I don't know what to say about HIM)  I didn't hear much of that - only when he interjected "the mother - the mother" when asked who the children should live with - but even that was odd.  He didn't mention that the mother of the 3rd child is not the same mother as the older two - and he used the singular.

So - while it would be fun to believe it- no - I can't.

[MentallyImpairedPandaGN]

Man I listened to the whole show last night, don't ask me why. IT was BIZARRE. I mean, it was like a schizophrenic having a conversation with himself, but I couldn't turn away. I was chuckling at some points, but it was just so damn weird I wasn't sure how to react.

I would be more likely to consider the guest's claim that he was channeling Michael Jackson if he didn't do the worst (and funniest) C2C show I've ever heard. I think you know the one I'm talking about, where for 3 hours he talked about gnomes and leprechauns.

All in all, it was just so damn weird and strange, too far out there... lol...

[kaleidoscope]

Now that Billy Mays has died, I wonder if von Lahr will be channeling him? Whatever next?

[Pirate King Atomsk]

Now that Billy Mays has died, I wonder if von Lahr will be channeling him?

Von Lahr: "One moment while I search for Billy's presence...

.........

...................

..........................

"Hi, Billy Mays here!"

[Curtis Loew]

Any thoughts? Or did most of you have better things to do last night than listening to this schmuck?

This was the last Saturday late night for me and Ian. I just can't take any more!

I'm actually a little surprised that Ian didn't boot him off to be honest.   Although didn't Ian have some guy on pretending to be Jesus at one time?

Pretty much the same deal with people phoning in and asking questions, no doubt some actually believing they were talking to Jesus himself.

Don't know if it's the last Saturday late night for me but it certainly was weird and a little insulting I might add.

[EvB]

I'm actually a little surprised that Ian didn't boot him off to be honest.   Although didn't Ian have some guy on pretending to be Jesus at one time?

He had a guy on who has a radio show where he answers questions from what he perceives (from his interpretation of the bible) as the POV of Jesus  - and yes, he does call himself Jesus in the process.   I thought his interview with Ian was interesting - but then I like that kind of "theater"  _ I tried one podcast of the guys show and didn't like it at all.

It's true that there were people who THOUGHT the guy actually believed himself to be Jesus - or at least actually speaking for Jesus (in a direct, literal sense) but people will belive anything.

The guys name is Neil Saavedra.  Hedosn't intend for people to think he's anyone but an actor sharing his biblical perspective.  He's no more Jesus than James Caviezel (Passion of the Christ)

All that said, it is interesting that The Jesus Christ Show is part of Premier Radio's stable. As for Ian not kicking off von Lehr  - I found it interesting that Ian was into the interview at all.  As he said himself more than once durring the show - it's not his usual cup of tea.  And, as those of us who listen to Ian know - it's not as easy as it was b4 the Quayle incident to tell when Ian thinks a guest is FOS - but it's not impossible either.  I don't think he bought this guy wholesale - but he did seem interested.

[Pirate King Atomsk]

Well thanks to Ev I was able to hear it. 

I just want to say that this guy wasn't the worst channeler I've heard, but he wasn't very good either. At times I could find it somewhat believable, and other times he made me guffaw. Enh, 50/50.

But actually, what really got to me about the show was how seriously pressing Ian was about pointing out that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, as if it were a proven fact. I mean, I agree, sure..paying off those people was stupid if he was innocent. But like..isn't it a bit unprofessional for a major radio host to call a man a pedophile directly after his death when he was never actually convicted of it? I dunno, I just thought it wasn't very tasteful. Speculation is fine, but he stated it as it were a scientifically proven fact.

[EvB]

But actually, what really got to me about the show was how seriously pressing Ian was about pointing out that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, as if it were a proven fact. I mean, I agree, sure..paying off those people was stupid if he was innocent. But like..isn't it a bit unprofessional for a major radio host to call a man a pedophile directly after his death when he was never actually convicted of it? I dunno, I just thought it wasn't very tasteful. Speculation is fine, but he stated it as it were a scientifically proven fact.

Ian's buttons were CLEARLY pushed - big time.  And, if you listen carefully, you can tell he knows it - but still can't help reacting.  It's obviously very personal to him.  I imagine that he;s had to counsel people who were harmed by sexual predators - but I think it's more.  Was it someone very close to him?  Was it, possibly, even HIM? The things he had to say leave all those possibilities on the table - but none of them 100% certain. 

And he was careful to say "civilly liable" -- though I'm not sure that is true.  OJ was found civilly liable in his x-wife's death - in court. Jackson, I thought, decided to settle OUT of court.  I'm not sure of the legal fine points of this.

Anyone? Beuler?

[Pirate King Atomsk]

Ian's buttons were CLEARLY pushed - big time.  And, if you listen carefully, you can tell he knows it - but still can't help reacting.  It's obviously very personal to him.  I imagine that he;s had to counsel people who were harmed by sexual predators - but I think it's more.  Was it someone very close to him?  Was it, possibly, even HIM? The things he had to say leave all those possibilities on the table - but none of them 100% certain. 

Yeah I noticed that as well. He was really going after him. I dunno what's up with his background, but it sounds like something hit close to home in one way or another.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Maybe a classic case of the guilty pointing finger?

[EvB]

Maybe a classic case of the guilty pointing finger?

Oooooooooooh ..  . now that's a bit low.  >shudders<

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Oooooooooooh ..  . now that's a bit low.  >shudders<

I'm just sayin'.  And you know that's how it almost always turns out - the red-handed crusader.

[EvB]

I know it does turn out that way often - but most often?  nah . . .

However - Bloom, did let him have it RE: how - were Jackson innocent (as Bloom believes he is) then just the shame of all the awful publicity would have been enough to kill him in the end (with all that goes with that - of course - it drives a person mad) and he kept repeating "the media did not CARE"

I don't know if Ian got, at that moment, that that also applied to him or not.  But, I've heard him comment on Jackson - long before this - and if Bloom is correct - it most certainly DOES include him.  Not that he didn't care, so much, as that he accepted the guilty notion, and spread the idea, with less evidence than the court had - since THEY found him innocent.

What can I say?  It's a tough one.

My own guess is that Jackson loved children.  Partly becuase he didn't get to be much of a kid himself. Did that result in his doing inappropriate things with children?  Yes, I'd say the tings he's admitted to, alone, were inappropriate. Was it ever actually sexual?  I don't know. 

The man was a massive talent, and massively fucked up.  Whatever he's done - I can't help but feel sad about that.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Never trust a crusader.  They always have some ulterior motive.  Truly good people don't need to make a show of it, ex. Mother Theresa.

[Supernormal]

Well thanks to Ev I was able to hear it. 

I just want to say that this guy wasn't the worst channeler I've heard, but he wasn't very good either. At times I could find it somewhat believable, and other times he made me guffaw. Enh, 50/50.

But actually, what really got to me about the show was how seriously pressing Ian was about pointing out that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, as if it were a proven fact. I mean, I agree, sure..paying off those people was stupid if he was innocent. But like..isn't it a bit unprofessional for a major radio host to call a man a pedophile directly after his death when he was never actually convicted of it? I dunno, I just thought it wasn't very tasteful. Speculation is fine, but he stated it as it were a scientifically proven fact.

He pretty much said that Elvis Presley was a pedophile too since he dated Priscilla when she was fourteen. He made it sound like he *knew* that the King had sex with her when she was an underage teenager. Frankly, he came across like a combination of Albert Goldman and the Church Lady. I wonder if he's one of these guys who think that it's a crime if an 18-year-old guy dates a 16-year-old girl.

[pearlgirl]

"Sexuality issues" aside, I couldn't help listening. I hadn't heard of this Lahr person before and kinda wish I hadn't. It was compelling, yet horrifying. From the website he has, I think you can add this one to the "questionable doctorates" file. Or am I missing something here?

[EvB]

It was compelling, yet horrifying.

My thoughts exactly. 

As for the doctorate - it's in metaphysics - I've no idea from where.  If I recall correctly - Duke University had a parapsychology major at one time.  I'm not sure how far it went  As far as I know - that was the last degree of its kind to have any legitimacy.

So - meh . ..

[Dr.ChristianvonLahr]

Kaleidoscope

Re: your Thread on myself, styled "Christian von Lahr, Msc.D. and Michael Jackson? on a/your? coastgab.com FORUM.

First, let me thank you for visiting the Coast to Coast AM broadcast venue as it has the unique stature of deliberately reaching out to both Americans and foreigners to solicit those [actual] views of their guests, those which are askew or counter to the rigid, dogmatic, straight-laced doctrine of general world perspectives.  I would include Ian Punnett and Art Bell as accomplished hosts, in addition to George Noory, however.

Thus, I commend you and acknowledge that your [active] participation might/must suggest that you see both logic and wisdom in having an open mind to not only everyone?s personal views, but [their] personal experiences and developed philosophies, ? those which come from [individuals] expressing their ?truth.?

Further, and perhaps more to your credit, you have and are through your continued demonstrative audio/visual participation acknowledging that ?truth,? is a relative thing; such that, there must NOT, therefore, be just ONE position on matters, nor one ?Right or Wrong,? or one correct view, one good religion, one valid race of man, or even one genuine and absolute spiritual belief ─ and certainly not only [your] view point(s) and belief system. 

Thus, your having the aforementioned intelligent approach to non-judgmental awareness and participation, you would not be wont to assertive, egotistic, narcissistic pre- judgment ? right?  Of course not, no one wants to be saying, ?I?m a chauvinistic, racist, fundamentalist diehard, radical while their presenting an OPEN CALL for world opinions. 

Since that aforementioned ?personal truth,? belief system, set of experiences or philosophy represents a desire to find ONE?S actual resonance with this space, time, dimension, universe and/or [ideation] within which we dwell ?. then one must similarly acknowledge that YOU TOO draw from your [personal] breadth of knowledge, awareness, experience, and intuition.  Ergo, if others cannot have their right to expression, then you too would deserve no recognition, ...your voice would have to be squelched, and burned in effigy.  ... Perhaps besmurched on some obsucre Forum, like adolescent grafitti under an overpass.

Therefore, all appropriate credit given, one would have to presume that you, being such a fair, honest and non-judgmental person as postured by the righteousness of your posting style, would be willing to ALLOW another their right to full and complete exploration of truth, life and existence WITHOUT [overshadowing] it with your own; since, that would then re-categorize you.


That said, perhaps I can address your Thread?s question directly, as after-all, I am its indirect, if not direct focus.

>>>I logged on to see what C2C listeners thought about this Christian von Lahr "channeling" Michael Jackson.

That you logged on to avail yourself of the opinions of other Coast to Coast AM listeners is commendable, as already suggested in the prefacing paragraphs.  Of course, if you are seeking awareness and not simply validation of your own ego, as I am sure you are not, then you would be inquiring elsewhere and everywhere, where there is no SET bias. 

It would be such a base and egocentric position to simply seek agreement on your own opinion, when that topic of reference, when counter to your own, serves only to self-gratify.  Preaching to a narrow-minded, prejudiced choir such as one would find in a tightly focused forum, may too imply adolescent discrimination.  Since we have established such is NOT the case, then we can presume you have availed yourself to a [world-view] and not a thug-consensus.   I wish you well on your endeavor for you will surely hear a heart-felt earful that will last a lifetime,  and gain actual enlightenment in the process.

That I or anyone can "Channel," is neither freakish, miraculous nor non-sensical.  If you have any [acutal] belief in a spiritual existence, then such thigs would HAVE to be a possibility in it; such abilities would be a matter of developed proficiency, by the way, nothing "special."  What WAS special about the matter, actually, was more that Mr. Jackson chose me to perform the service --- he would certainly have had his choice from among many in the world.  And, his choice was likely a logical one as people who represent him (his "Handlers" as they call themselves) approached someone who happend to be MY client, thus bringing me into the circle --- therefore, it was a choice due to circumstance.  What WAS performed, a channeling, fits within all reason, fundamentals and historically proven abilities of Man (in general,) but more especialy for those who [actually] work at the proficiency.  "Channeling" is most simply stated an "influence" from a consciousness source relatively higher than where we functionally reside.   We ALL are receiving influece constantly, and react to it to greater or lessor degrees.  SOME people develop their proficiency to be more discerning of the finer frequencies of consciousness about us, much like a very good radio could lock on to a channel of music that a cheaper apparatus might squelch due to lack of precision.

>>>> I went to von Lahr's website and it's full of the usual appalling dreck.

WHAT?S THIS???  Perhaps I spoke too soon?  ?Appalling??   

How arrogant must one be to not realize that in the greater body of the world, MOST would find the material on my website sensible, second-nature and [base] or ?core? belief.  I?m sure I didn?t miss anything, did I?  This domain isn?t actually some fundamentalist, racist, E-rag, is it?  Surely not, perhaps you didn?t think before you spoke.

MOST of the world has embraced {Archangels, Dhyani-chohen or Elohim}, and the angels that serve them, and the Nature Spirits (nature people) who serve under them to bring ?FORM? or physical objectivity to the spiritual essence from which all ensue, to be A COMMON-KNOWLEDGE SPIRITUAL FUNDAMENETAL.  If you chose to chastise, then we must assume you have a basis, a right, to your opinion.  you have offered nothing to refute the historical and artifactual evidence from which I draw.

Since actual historical philosophical ?spirituality,? which is the basis for my materials recognizes the ?fundamentals? of  broadest basis of spirituality itself, and is therefore from 2,to 4 to 20 times older than Christianity, it is wholly ignorant of anyone to condemn the wisdom of the ages, and the underpinnings of every religion (at their time of inception).  The evidence of these general tenets are everywhere in the world for eons and eons.  If you don?t get out much, find yourself a couple thousand books and read them, you will find I am right (although, I do not NEED to be.)

If you chose to remain totally uninformed, slapdash of knowledge, wisdom and reason from Step-1 till NOW, of who ?we? are, how we got here, the reasons for existence, the purpose of life, the proof of Divinity (in whatever form resonates with one or another) and the ways and means of the divine ideation, then please take hold of your own assessment; ?appalling.? 

Condemnation of another, of others simply because one (consider this may be you) is ignorant of the world and its learned and vast belief system, would indeed, be appalling.  If you think the rest of the world has a rigid view and basis for spiritual belief as remiss as yours, you have deluded yourself.  Your course of thinking is precisely what leads to war(s).  Behind all spiritual beliefs, way back in the beginning, they were far more the same, than different.  ?Special? people with big egos, private agendas, and the thirst for power tweeked, changed, altered and outright adulterated the world?s foundational beliefs.  If you are following the RESULT as your ?truth,? and would impose it on others and the world, then you are behind the times.

PS:  "Dreck?"  Is this baby-talk, or something?  <rolls eyes>

>>>> Any thoughts? Or did most of you have better things to do last night than listening to this schmuck?

Obviously, you did not.  Perhaps this was/is a blessing in disguise.  This schmuck may just have the rationale behind existence and our place in it that you are secretly yearning to know; behind your mock tears of admonition is a fire  that calls out for the kindling of wisdom, so it [you] can burn brighter.  This is not a time to be praying for rain.  You would clearly have an unfathomable amount of homework to do in life, because you think it to be relative to your physical surroundings.  Now see, to the greater world, I would not be the schmuck.  Such ignorance to levels and realms of life condemns you by your own choice. 

Nothing in this world, no one, and certainly NOT YOU can have any ?meaning? if you want to hold out that existence is some freakish 15,000,000,000 year old anomaly that produced YOU in a flash, and would THEREFORE HAVE TO extinguish itself in kind, since there is no intelligence behind life and consciousness.  What I speak to, study upon for four decades, share for nearly as many and demonstrate as best I can  to help others, those who have [common sense], is a sacrificial act; YOU prove the sacrifice.

You are here by ?intent,? there is a reason behind your existence, you are meant to be something, do something and to make a difference, and this serves some higher, spiritual purpose that gives credence to the intellectual design of the Universe, and everlasting life.  You can call myself and others a schmuck all day long, but that would not make it so.  HAVING your belief, however, makes it true regardless; but why condemn the shadow of ignorance when it is that man himself who is the more remiss. You must learn precisely what is meant by "one's Light," so you can learn to shine and brighten, and not fliker and condemn to shadows.

What I have communicated is [my take] based on decades of learning, experiencing, lecturing and proving the tenets behind spirituality.  It turns out, the world DID get it right. Albiet, and obviously, many of those current are oblivious to the learned wisdom of the ages.  Give yourself a break and instead of condemning others because your are ignorant, ? read, study, and prove whatever it is you want to believe in. 

If you CAN?T do ALL OF THESE then you have no belief system whatsoever, you have merely adopted a convenient one and put NO effort into understanding it.  You can be a crystal-clear, yet brainless dud by condemning others for TAKING THE RISK to present a well-thought out belief system, or facets thereof, but then your 15 billion year accident will end up a tragedy as well;  you will have been a total waste.  DON?T CONDEMN, argue with valid and substantial rhetoric.
 
You need to find a reason to HAVE your beliefs.  You can?t and haven?t substantiated your opposition with even a syllable of rationale.  Do you think you are being intelligent with your position?

>>>>This was the last Saturday late night for me and Ian. I just can't take any more!

It takes only a tiny bit more than simple common sense to conclude that YOU WANT to understand and believe these higher concepts.  Like so very many of your league, you will condemn, condemn, condemn until you finally get someone to spoon-feed you some wisdom.  It is NOT the obligation of the world to stoop down to baby-sit you.  Put some effort into your life.  Read, from all areas and all walks of life, all philosophies, all sources of wisdom and establish a BASIS for what you believe.  Get some actual experience in life of these matters that consume your late Saturday nights.  Open your mind, and you may as well open your potential.  You should NOT be reaching the opinion that everyone else is wrong.  That merely conveys that you are wrong.  You should , instead, be showing the variances you find to other opinions, such that the insight distinguishes you as having reached ?learned? positions.

Those George Noory?s, Ian Punnetts and Art Bells of the world are doing a service that you could NEVER accomplish.  They set their egos aside to bring YOUR (yours, mine and ours, ? everyone?s) to the world for consideration.  THEY are the big people.  You can turn your back, you can condemn, you can NOT listen, but you are actually, in so doing, saying you do not want to listen to any position, any knowledge, any wisdom but your own.

What happened?  You started out with this righteous position that might have conveyed fairness and justice.  But, then you left the virtuous path and journeyed down a tight vortex into that small space of your own mind, and turned your back on the very opportunity you were seeking from a show like Coast to Coast.  WAKE UP.   The programs are NOT to convince you of anything.  They are to convey IT?S OK to think, rationalize, experience and express your ?truth.?  If you want to be recognized as being [something] then you are going to have to become a bigger person and allow these hosts who risk all the insults and denunciation of the many, just for the privilege of giving your EXACTLY what you want ─ a chance to find your enlightenment, and to be able to express it.  They put their fates where their heart is by having guests on, like myself, who have something to say, BECAUSE, they do.


If you can?t wake up and smell the coffee, then at least be polite and pass the sugar.


Dr. Christian von L?hr, Msc.D.

[EvB]

Y'all come back now, hear?

[MV/Liberace!]

Perhaps besmurched on some obsucre Forum, like adolescent grafitti under an overpass.

obscure enough that you decided to spend a considerable amount of time on said forum expressing your thoughts, right?

suggestion:  go to google and enter the term "george noory" for a full accounting of our obscurity.

as you were.

[Dr.ChristianvonLahr]

eVb

While I didn't expect that von Lahr would "imitate" Jackson's voice - I DID expect that there would be verbal quirks of speech, phrases and such. (Or, I should say - I'd expect that if a voice was channeled - von Lahr is so strange that I don't know what to say about HIM)

This really isn't worth commenting on, but I'll say a bit; just to demonstrate the inadequacy of your thinking in this thread.

Your [expectation] is of no value, or meaning as a factor in deciding to perform the session, it could not be.  "It is what it is," because the objective is to do "Mental" mediumship, not physical mediumship.  The [service] was the objective, not "entertainment."   Regardless, I didn't imitate Jackson's voice, and had no intention to (again, such overshadowing is "physical" mediumship -- not a good thing to be doing.)  Quirks could be there or not, ... that would totally be dependent on how the information affected ME as it came through me -- such would not be/was not an objective.  Channeling "live" on either Radio or Television is a difficult thing to do as a guest, and one is not in a practiced or routine format, and this has to do with the fact that the medium's MIND is being engaged by extraneous facets related to the program.  These interfere with the process as the mind has to actually be its MOST quiet, when it is trying to pick up consciousness from another sphere.  This is why few, even the great names, will perform in an impromptu scenario -- it taxes the mind, and interferes with the channel.  I would never do this under normal circumstances, but was influenced to perform this service by Jackson and for Jackson -- there was nothing in this for me, nor anyone who undertakes this burden. 

Further, if you listened to the introduction you would have, or SHOULD have, taken note that Jackson was mentioned to have [just] passed.  This presents a mediumship problem which I undertook to overcome by leading, as well as narrating in addition to the mediumship.  HE can't do it all, and you were not there to help.  It would be the only way to present the viewpoint of a consciousness that is in a purely [emotional] state of consciousness (by Divine design and intent at this stage)  to listeners who are expecting to be "talked to."  Channeling of that kind is possible AFTER they have actually seated themselves IN the Astral Plane, not while they are still crossing the divide.  To put this in real-world (meaning this physical world since "real" is a physical term) context, then it would be like you leaving High School, but having to show up at University the next day.  Upon arrival, you are asked to run up on stage and deliver your doctorate Dissertation.  You couldn't do this, yet, you might stumble through if the dissertation was on your life, and someone could guide you through it literally step by step.

It is curious to me that people have a nature to presume they are right about things of which they have no knowledge.  And, instead of asking, they insist.  Perhaps this is the purpose of Forums.  If we keep throwing darts at a dart board, eventually it sinks in that there is logic to the activity.
As regards ?the mother,? or mothers, ? such things are Michael?s business.  There were a number of things that I would prefer he said, or didn?t say, or changed as the channeling is going on, but I HAVE to dismiss my evaluation, or the channeling would cease ? channeling ISN?T about the channeler. 

My thinking process produces an energy or vibration that is stronger than ANY consciousness beyond this realm; hence the need to quiet the mind.  Had people ASKED me about the mother, I could have then conveyed the [thinking] so-to-speak or rationale behind Michael?s words --- those things are up to you and the listeners to ask, if they are of interest.  For example, Michael hedged on some things ? I could tell why, but it wasn?t my place to do so.  Some people, those that asked questions, have things going on behind the scenes as well.  Even though I pick up on those I can?t expose them on the air, or question them, or tell them they are opening themselves up to a problem if the question is fully answered.  It?s is incredibly difficult enough, even putting the bravery aside, to handle a channel live, on-stage in an unfamiliar scenario, ? to add entertainment components, or to correct the questioner and/or the channelee would doom the process.

There were several things that were said in Channel, that were brilliant, and these will be self-evident in time.  Other things that you may think are remiss are your misguided understanding of the process of transitioning consciousness.  You, as others, think that Michael Jackson on the OTHER SIDE is the same Michael Jackson as here.  No.  If that were so, why die?  The Astral plane is LITERALLY a world apart.  The majority that you use to actually express yourself in this world IS GONE, when you transition.  Most who cross can?t even remember their own names; they have to resort to letters, numbers or symbols.  It is like waking up in Tibet and having to communicate at the top of the tallest mountain in the world where you cannot breathe, naked, and with a gag over your mouth, your hands tied behind you, and where you are swinging by your feet that are tied to a high tree limb.  ?Michael Jackson, please confess and spill your guts for our listeners please, and then we will have questions.?  Get real.  It takes a while to regain your composure, and you have to do it under NEW terms.  This is the whole reason we have mediums in the first place, OBVIOUSLY, they/we/I have to provide some intermediary service.  I can?t take the gag off of Michael?s mouth, for example, but I can cut a little hole in the tape so we can get some communication going.  It?s going to be choppy, but it?s something.  I don?t expect him to give some historical reference essay on the difference between ?mothers? to him; NOT YET.  He will struggle to say the very MOST important things with the least amount of effort.  I can?t untie his hands, but I can communicate his discomfort.  Because of his discomfort his sentences, such that they are will not even be entirely words.  He will automatically (because he is in the ?emotional? Astral) start substituting emotions for words.  So, HOW do I tell you that in mid-sentence?  That was a rhetorical question, I don?t want an answer.  I am merely conveying that channeling a person who JUST died is not going to be like sticking a microphone in front of your companion who happens to be sitting with you in the bleachers.

[Pirate King Atomsk]

Hey Christian, while you're here... could you channel David Carradine over the internet? I wanna know how to choke myself into having an orgasm.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Hey Christian, while you're here... could you channel David Carradine over the internet? I wanna know how to choke myself into having an orgasm.

I about just died when I read this,................*beet red in the face, asphyxiating from laughter*  .........wow, I think I just blew my wad!!!

[Pirate King Atomsk]

I about just died when I read this,................*beet red in the face, asphyxiating from laughter*  .........wow, I think I just blew my wad!!!

Bwahahahaha. xDDDD

[Dr.ChristianvonLahr]

Mr. Pirate King Atomsk

>>>>Hey Christian, while you're here... could you channel David Carradine over the internet?  I wanna know how to choke myself into having an orgasm.

Curious synchronicity─ or qualities thereof─ this post is.  I met David Carradine at the very same Los Angeles exposition, back in February of this year, that I referred to in the on-the-air C2C program that this Thread references.  Although I tried to engage him on two occasions, because I felt he could benefit from some positive encouragement, I was rebuffed by his rude and brusque attitude.  He was wallowing in self-pity. 

He was at the New Age Health and Wellness class exposition with a/his musical group trying his hand at spiritual renditions of his personal musical influences.  Sadly, his portion of the exposition was very poorly attended; so his attitude was somewhat understandable.  I regret that Los Angeles could not have given him a greater audience.  Still, if acceptance and understanding is what he wanted, it is sadder still that it is rebuffed when offered.  This is something we can all consider.


That said, I would find it unlikely that I could find interest in channeling David Carradine, and he has already specifically NOT selected me as one to whom he can communicate, or wishes to.


Now, I find it interesting that I grew up actually admiring Mr. Carradine, and literally all the venues he appeared in.  Such was what I wanted to convey when I saw him in the hotel lobby at the aforementioned event, and outside later-on waiting for his ?stretch.?  Quite conversely, I know and knew almost nothing at all about Mr. Michael Jackson; I never followed his music or life, and had no deep interest in or draw to ?his story? (if that compendium phrase makes sense to you) ─or drama─ while he was in the physical.  As stated already, Mr. Jackson through his spiritual agencies sought me out.  The plea was earnest, and overwhelmingly compelling.  I am quite sure that ANYONE here would find the very same fortitude and compassion within themselves when approached with heartfelt sincerity for HELP.  There was nothing special involved there, and I have no need for dramatic exclusivity.  I was just being a human like you all, using the few tools that are in my power belt.  Everyone here, likely without exception, is a super-hero in their own right, and can tell this same story of the Thread?s topic using circumstances representative of their real-world expression.

So, we just don?t know what?s going to tap us on the shoulder one day, or slam the door shut on another; and it doesn?t seem to be a reflection on ourselves either way.  This would be why I would suggest we may have affinities for one another on levels or realities quite beyond this one we physically function in at the moment.


Mr. Atomsk, as pertains your request for assistance:

>>>> while you're here... could you channel David Carradine over the internet?  I wanna know how to choke myself into having an orgasm.

First, I will not be here long enough to be sure that the desired assistance anticipated would be properly acted upon ─ and I do strive to be thorough ─ but I it would be reasonable to presume that your contemporaries in life could offer the better service.  Who else would have such an interest, or understanding?  As with everyone, you can reach out to those in your  own very small circle, and if you are sincere, they will endeavor to bring you respite. 

Secondly, you would clearly benefit from a release, but consider getting off on yourself; that meaning, find those several things about YOU that are great, exciting, special, worthwhile, special, and shareable of a ?good? quality, such that they can be left as your testament in life.  Find your legacy now and develop it.  And then, seek not assistance, by share your qualities with compassion.  Should you one day be old enough to responsibly father children, think about what THEY would want to retain as their memory of you; certainly not the splendor of your gag reflexes.  Orgasms are momentary pleasure ─ if your life is predicated on mere moments of contentment, than such is no life at all.  Find yours.

Lastly, that I did not, or will not be channeling Mr. Carradine does not in any way suggest I am not aware of extenuating circumstances surrounding his death.  Those being alluded to, it should be understandable to you when I say HE would not be the one who would hold your hand during the requested instruction scenario.

Christian

[Pirate King Atomsk]

Heh, yeah I get the 'HIStory" reference. Cute.

And don't worry Mr. Lahr. I'm not really interested in any form of erotic asphyxiation. I prefer good old fashioned dry humping. Safe, and victimless. 

But in all seriousness - I was intrigued by your recent show, Mr.Lahr. I've heard a lot of channelers for my young age and I found you to be at least somewhat believable. Admittedly, I'm a big skeptic. I don't buy into the good majority of the things discussed on C2CAM...it's more entertainment value to me. However, I genuinely enjoyed your show with Ian more than the usual spiel of late. 

[Dr.ChristianvonLahr]

Mr. King Atomsk


Refreshing open mindedness. 

Thank you for the complimentary appraisal - it was not necessary, but special because it was voluntary.  You made an interesting point that warrants elaboration, as it would be helpful to me, yourself, as well as your comrades herein, and to us all everywhere.

There is NOTHING WRONG with being skeptical.  It is actually the CORRECT way to be.  It suggests, at minimal, a sign of intelligence.  We are skeptical in this current Round of life very pointedly because we have an Ego; an Ego ─ the spiritual mechanism that allows us to be ?aware,? primarily of ourselves, FORCES us to discern.  The reason for this is so [WE] develop our OWN knowledge base, and thus, a sense of knowing.  We develop beliefs that are the result of our own personal ?reasoning.?  However, regardless the blessing of this attribute within us, it stands to reason that this knowledge base is AT BEST ?relative;? probably relative to our upbringing, our life, our exposure.  Therefore, [IT] is not in and of itself a fact, or determination of fact, merely ?our Truth.?

Sometimes in life, most likely eventually, we ALL have [experiences] or awareness that do not jive with our contemporaries.  Not being able to express those things that are [real] for us, even when among our own constituency, ?is retro-active.  Therefore, we will seek-out a venue where our voice can be heard, because we want validation; we want certain things heard, discussed, reviewed, analyzed, explained, and hopefully authenticated.  We will, if we are normal, turn from even our friends and family when faced with an experience that is so inescapably real, albeit unexplained, it cannot escape our waking thoughts.

THIS is why I give acknowledgement to the hosts that this Forum would disparage, innocent as such may be.  It is THEY who set their ego aside to give you, I or anyone with a personal experience of Truth, [their] moment to explain themselves without threat of prosecution.  This is something even our family and friends would not/do not do for us.  Can any one of us be as ?big? as they, these Coast to Coast Hosts?  But, nonetheless, they do.  Without reward of accolade, they give us all, whoever has their story to tell, their ?chance? to be heard so they can complete their journey of the Ego─which is ?to learn.?

It should stand to reason that there is an astounding number of things going on which DO NOT fit into our realm of physical existence as a product of physics.  As well, it stands to reason that NO ONE of us will have ALL of those experiences; they will be spread around to each and every one of us in doses to greater or lesser degrees according to our resonance.  Such is the value of the venue of Coast to Coast.  Some ?thing? during the discourses over time will resonate with us and contribute to OUR personal experiences, and thusly lead to ?our Truth.?

[MV/Liberace!]

i must say that while i am not able to believe in the validity of channeling, i have to commend you for defending yourself in this thread.  most guests would never have the courage to do so considering the hostile nature of this environment.  you have my respect for that, regardless of any opinion i might hold concerning what you do or how you do it.

and today i did listen to your appearance on c2c.  i found it to be at least worthy of hearing out.

[Pirate King Atomsk]

The way I see it, Art and Noory and probably the majority of the guests know we exist. You can't google "George Noory" without us popping up on page #1. However, most of the guests don't have the gonads to join and address a forum of people who aren't Noory's drones. That is definitely something I gotta say I respect on Christian's behalf. I think we've only had about two other C2CAM guests post here in the past year.