Mail this PageMany works talk of the passage, but ZetaTalk is the first and only to speak to 2003 [Note: see 2003 Date explanation]. We are know for our bluntness, often
complained about, for one. Additionally, many groups are reluctant to cause human pain, as the reality that they and their loved ones will die, often painfully, and
their lives as lived today hollow, their leadership lying to them, is painful. Thus, they blunt the truth, and clothe it in reassurances of better times to come. We have
courage, and are working with our emissary Nancy as we are because of her courage.
Comparisons to ZetaTalk are constantly being made. As we have pointed out, at least half of all claimed messages from higher or other sources are false. The
perpetrators know this, are consciously aware they are writing a fiction, and enjoying the attention they are getting or the money they are getting if they are a
disinformation artist for hire. Beyond the deliberate falsehoods perpetrated, there are the valid or semi-valid messages. Of these, the contactee is often mixing in
their own fear or prejudices, coloring the message. Of these, the aliens communicating with the contactee or channel may have their own reluctance to announce the
truth, as the coming Earth changes will be horrific for most of mankind. Then there are those valid messages relayed, which are confused as to context. As with
Cayce, who describe Earth changes the week of the rotation stoppage, or during the hour of the shift, not after the shift itself. Why would he do this? Cayce and
those communicating with him felt that mankind would be most aware, and relating Cayce's message to their situation, during those times. So those comparing
ZetaTalk to Cayce find differences, not understanding this.
Our general advice to mankind it to evaluate other communications in accordance with their proven validity. Nancy has been stating much, lately, that ZetaTalk has
a track record. Scallion too, and Cayce. If a site is not to be assumed to be just so much hot air, and worthless, then it must have predicted, regularly, and be
found valid! Of not, then please don't bother asking us for a comparison to garbage!