What would you do if you 'knew'?

reply to post by undo


But if I only change history for me by taking action, then by definition everyone else around me would still think that Hitler existed, while I don't. The conclusion I must draw from that is that the whole Universe exists for me and I know thats not true. I am but a finite miniscule cog in the scheme of things. And my reality is the same as everyone else's, whether I admit it or not.

What if your "dreams" are the result of MK Ultra programming and TPTB want you to kill this man in order to save their profits?

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


My sentiments exactly.

Great post! Certainly food for thought. The thing about mankind is that we have the potential for some very great things if we can get passed the abhorrent nature more than a few of us seem to posses. There is the old saying, "How would we know what good was if we had not experienced evil?" We may not like it but it seems that evil has a purpose. Not just it's own agenda. I am not sure that killing someone for something they have not done yet is the only option, no matter how finite the options seem. It seems to me that defeating evil with evil would be counter productive. What if you had the opportunity to change this person's thoughts, the way they think or give them insight into the effects of what they might do? Would it be possible to influence them? Would you exhaust every other avenue before assuming that killing was your only option?

You are also assuming that you have somehow miraculously calculated all the possible outcomes and variations while not impossible it would be a feat in itself. Are these thoughts or dreams your own and not some sort of implanted vision to make you believe someone else is capable of such things to make you believe killing is the only option? The fact that there is a time frame of 3 days does sound rather like a count down one would expect of an implanted sleeper activated to do a particular job. Give your operative a scenario and a count down while leaving their conscience to do the rest. You have an instant killing spree for a false flag.

It is my experience to not give up on people so that is what I would be inclined to go with and have faith that this person could be swayed from their current path.
If it were a real and direct threat however, I would not hesitate to put my life before that of my loved ones or innocent children. I would vigorously defend myself and mine from an intruder without a second thought. From something as indirect as a perceived threat from a dream or vision, I would let it go. Dreams have never been set in stone and in fact often mean the direct opposite of what you are dreaming.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by undo

 

But if I only change history for me by taking action, then by definition everyone else around me would still think that Hitler existed, while I don't. The conclusion I must draw from that is that the whole Universe exists for me and I know thats not true. I am but a finite miniscule cog in the scheme of things. And my reality is the same as everyone else's, whether I admit it or not.

Unless........

Have you read The Egg?

Maybe the whole universe does exist just for you.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

If I answered further, would you believe it?

What I believe as an individual is, ultimately, irrelevent. And this thread demonstrates it with crystal clarity

The outcome will based on the collective, the general consensus, 'democracy' and majority rule. We would have to collectively believe you, or not, for me to be able to answer the question.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by undo

 

But if I only change history for me by taking action, then by definition everyone else around me would still think that Hitler existed, while I don't. The conclusion I must draw from that is that the whole Universe exists for me and I know thats not true. I am but a finite miniscule cog in the scheme of things. And my reality is the same as everyone else's, whether I admit it or not.

Perhaps the question regarding Hitler was too vague in its simplicity... It was a question in the sense that you lived in a time before Hitler rose to power, and absolute foreknowledge of what he would become, what he would eventually do... would you then kill him?

It was never about time travel, only about the odd and uncontrollable ability to experience future events (out of body), with the ability later to intervene before those events take place. In this you always have two potential outcomes, and are fully aware of both, and that is your only control, you can choose to NOT intervene, as we have apparently done here, collectively.

Originally posted by St Udio

One should leave the timeline play itself out to a conclusion

The non intervention protocol.

by injecting one's value judgement/ morality stance upon the situation~(by killing the despot)... you are causing many others their freedom of choice to be negated...

Absolutely. Denying them their learning curve and thus their ultimate enlightenment.

you or myself are not self designated judge-jury-executioner...

He who is without guilt may cast the first stone... nonjudgmental.

Zen out nd leave the historical time-line play out as it should--- without intervention on your part

Patience, also good. Observe without over reacting.

many might suffer/die/ get exiled/ imprisoned -0---- but thats what it takes for the collective consciousness to come-to-terms with sinister or fascist forces

We suffer from evil until we are awakened by it.

A seedling will not grow up healthy and strong without the wind, rain and sun beating on it from time to time.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by undo

 

But if I only change history for me by taking action, then by definition everyone else around me would still think that Hitler existed, while I don't. The conclusion I must draw from that is that the whole Universe exists for me and I know thats not true. I am but a finite miniscule cog in the scheme of things. And my reality is the same as everyone else's, whether I admit it or not.

not true. in your modified timeline, you killed him, so even they know he's dead. it's a different timeline.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Your scenario strongly resembles the 1983 film The Dead Zone . Starring Christopher walken.

www.imdb.com...

Your thread is far from original

reply to post by getreadyalready


where ever you go, there you are. (simple version)

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


no, it's best to intervene in a way where no one dies. i don't see why that is not an available option since it is a future event and potential outcomes are in a super position.

reply to post by tpg65


Damn, I watched the trailer, now I've got to find that movie and watch it... Interesting find.... How does it end?

Spoilers allowed.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by tpg65

 

Damn, I watched the trailer, now I've got to find that movie and watch it... Interesting find.... How does it end?

Spoilers allowed.

I would hazard a guess that you know how it ends

Even your question about Hitler came directly from the film


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by undo


There was always only one way to stop this, and that time is passing, there are other things that can be attempted, but all doomed to fail... You are free to try them all.

Having foreknowledge, means that you are already fully aware of the only options you have... In this case, it was all pretty straight forward, act to intervene in the only way that would stop him, or not.

this entire thing reminds me of this story\

Two women came to King Solomon and stood before him. One woman (#1) said: "My Lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house, and I gave birth to a child while with her in the house. On the third day after I gave birth, she also gave birth. We live together; there is no outsider with us in the house; only the two of us were there. The son of this woman died during the night because she lay upon him. She arose during the night and took my son from my side while I was asleep, and lay him in her bosom, and her dead son she laid in my bosom. when I got up in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was dead! But when I observed him (later on) in the morning, I realized that he was not my son to whom I had given birth!"

The other woman (#2) replied: "It is not so! My son is the live one and your son is the dead one!"

The first woman (#1) responded: "It is not so! Your son is the dead one and my son is the living one!"

They argued before King Solomon.

King Solomon said: "this woman (#2) claims 'My son is the live one and your son is the dead one, 'and this woman (#1) claims 'Your son is the dead one and my son is the living one!"'

King Solomon said, "Bring me a sword!" So they brought a sword before the King. The King said, "Cut the living child in two, and give half to one and half to the other"

The woman (#2) turned to the King, because her compassion was aroused for her son, and said: "Please my Lord, give her the living child and do not kill it!"

But the other woman (#1) said: "Neither mine nor yours shall he be. Cut!"

The King spoke up and said: "Give her (#2) the living child, and do not kill it, for she is his mother!"

-----

no dead babies. mmkay, thanks.

I would just leave the area until the date the vision is suppossed to be over. Because I would not want to act so strongly on something that could be an overworking imagination of someone with too much time to spare.

reply to post by tpg65


It's blocked in my country, I can't watch it... Can you tell me how the movie ends?

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by undo

 

There was always only one way to stop this, and that time is passing, there are other things that can be attempted, but all doomed to fail... You are free to try them all.

Having foreknowledge, means that you are already fully aware of the only options you have... In this case, it was all pretty straight forward, act to intervene in the only way that would stop him, or not.

so you're saying that there were more than 2 options and you investigated them all? even the ones where no one had to die and still only 2 options were left to you? that doesn't make sense. ALL the options were available to you. nothing has happened yet. so everything about the event can be changed BEFORE the event as seen in those 2 choices, arrives. i don't get it. the future is not cemented into place. it's malleable

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by undo

 

There was always only one way to stop this, and that time is passing, there are other things that can be attempted, but all doomed to fail... You are free to try them all.

Having foreknowledge, means that you are already fully aware of the only options you have... In this case, it was all pretty straight forward, act to intervene in the only way that would stop him, or not.

The difficulty in trying to solve the problem posed stems from us having to justify our answers. How many of us have been able to say simply intervene or don't intervene?

In trying to justify our theoretical action we complicate the matter and confuse ourselves with variables.

The absolutes are that there are 2 options. Intervene. Don't intervene.

reply to post by Mouldilocks


yeah i get that part, the intervene or don't intervene. i'm talking about what happens when you intervene. if choice 2 is to do nothing and billions of people die, then your foreknowledge of it has served no purpose other than make you an accessory to the crime in some hypothethical way. if choice 1 is to intervene, the options/choices divide infinitely from there: kill him, don't kill him but rather maim him, don't do those things but something else, like sabotage his lab, destroy the virus, kidnap him, pray for him, tie up his hands so he can't do the deed, modify the events of the timeline in such a way that the parts leading to the use of the virus, never transpire. maybe the equipment doenst work, the electricity is shut off, good grief, there's so many options to avoid killing or being killed in that scenario.

reply to post by tpg65


Okay, I read up on the movie (thanks to Google), and can see how you made the connections to this thread, and perhaps you are trying to accuse me of something based on that... Which at best is a very loose connection to what happened here in this thread.

In that movie a man (Walken) has an accident, is in a coma for years, wakes up and has the ability to see the past, or the future through others by holding their hand, a man (Sheen) is running for office, he shakes his hand and sees what he will do in the future as president (evil man), and decides to kill him... Striking similarities, I agree.... Especially the Hitler question!

I would still like to see this movie, if I can find it.... Oh, and you are free to assume whatever you want, but that movie had no role in what I posted here... If you look long enough, I'm sure you can find movie connections to many other threads here as well.

Still, I must say... I'm impressed.