Difference between revisions of "Talk:Contact Report 30"
From Billy Meier
(New page: ~~~~ The correct number of this contact is 230.) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[User:Uranti|uranti]] 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) The correct number of this contact is 230. | [[User:Uranti|uranti]] 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) The correct number of this contact is 230. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jamesm|Jamesm]] 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC) How did you come to that conclusion, Uranti, please? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Uranti|uranti]] 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Isn't it right? I am preparing polish translations of contact notes and had wondered how it could be possible that the contact that took place in 1989 is placed amid contacts from 1975. Besides the date and time of the contact is exactly the same as in 230. I found this fact a bit confusing at the beginning. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jamesm|Jamesm]] 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) You appear to be correct. I've moved it to [[Contact Report 230]] Part 3. Thanks for letting me know. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 26 August 2008
uranti 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) The correct number of this contact is 230.
Jamesm 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC) How did you come to that conclusion, Uranti, please?
uranti 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Isn't it right? I am preparing polish translations of contact notes and had wondered how it could be possible that the contact that took place in 1989 is placed amid contacts from 1975. Besides the date and time of the contact is exactly the same as in 230. I found this fact a bit confusing at the beginning.
Jamesm 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) You appear to be correct. I've moved it to Contact Report 230 Part 3. Thanks for letting me know.
