Kerry Cassidy: So this is
Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan, and we’re here with Clif High from
Half Past Human, a very interesting website, I’ve got to say. So
it’s great to have you with us and we are Project Camelot and
Project Avalon.
From here we just want to talk to you, basically, about your
site and about your research, and some of the things you’re
getting in the near future. And then talk about some of those
things that you’re seeing long range as well.
Clif High: Okay. You guide. It’s entirely your forum here
so you ask, I shall reply.
K: OK. To start out with, I guess the most interesting
way to start would be to explain a little bit about the
technique you’ve got going on here.
C: OK, I’ll give you the basic spiel on the thing and we’ll go
from there. And in 1994 I came across this idea that I called
“The Language Model for Storing Data” while working for some of
the high-tech… well, the largest software companies on the
planet.
And finally over time I wrote some software to support the idea,
in an attempt to mine the internet for emotions around the idea
of stocks and bonds, with the idea that, if I knew how people
felt about them, I could predict what their reaction would be to
developing news, ahead of their being able to make that actual
reaction themselves…with the idea that this could be sold as a
profit-making kind of a venture.
And in 1997 I came across something that totally flipped my mind
about this whole idea, in the sense that I went looking for
Stanford University Network, a stock at the time, and came
across “suns” because… in terms of the fuller energy source
we’ve got for us… and noticed that there were some really
interesting things going on in the language I was picking up.
From there I… From 1997 to 2001 I deduced some of the following
principals: All people are psychic. Most don’t know it. Even if
you do know it, it does not impact the next statement I’m going
to make, which is: That all humans leak out these psychic
impressions in the language that they choose to use in ordinary
conversation. And that was my basic premise to begin with.
My working theory from that point was that if one could sample
enough of the conversations going on around the planet and sift
for the nuance between why one word might be chosen in an
ordinary conversation as opposed to another word for the same
conversation that basically you’d had a week ago, then one could
determine what is moving us, if you will, at an unconscious
level and be able to make some forecasts from that in a very
interesting way.
Sort of an extension, if you will, of my work,
of the focus of it in 1997, which was commercial. Make sense?
K: Yes. Wonderful.
C: OK. So basically at that point I’m assuming that all these
psychics are out there. And I had educated myself on language,
and how linguistics works, and how the human brain works, and
all this kind of thing. Along the way I wrote this little piece
of software that allowed me to read off the computer screen at
up to 2000 words per minute, so I was able to suck down vast
quantities of text over those years. And it led to some
interesting breakthroughs on its own.
But, in any event, the issues about language… It turns out that
there is a nuance. We have, taking English speakers as an
example, we might know more or less intuitively or internally
the definitions of, say, about 100,000 words. Depending on your
specialty and what you do for a living at the time, technically
that might be slightly larger or slightly less. But any given
human English speaker may only use 11 or 12,000 words in any
given week. And the 11 or 12,000 words is not static from week
to week to week. It shifts.
So if we start thinking about this in terms of set theory and
fuzzy set theory, which is part of the programming, and I wasn’t
really into the programming of it all, then you start getting
into the idea of: Well, why from week to week to week, do some
of the words within our basic set fall out and are replaced by
others?
And that was my premise that: Oh well, that’s occurring because
of something that we are picking up as human antenna walking
around vibrating on the planet and also picking up information
just because we’re here.
Again that sort of makes sense, right?
K: Right.
C: OK. And then…
K: But what do you mean, you weren’t interested in the… I’m not
sure. You weren’t interested in the computer modeling side of
it? Or are you saying someone else took care of that?
C: No, no. I did all of that. I was fascinated by the math in
the language and so on. And I’m a programmer. That’s basically
where I came from. I programmed for a software company. It’s
like Microsoft. I wrote software for phone companies, worked on
some very complex stuff. Worked for GEC Marconi and very large
companies, those kind of things, almost exclusively in the
software realm.
But eventually it rose up to the point where I was working on
algorithms and computer theory, as opposed to actual software,
over the course of… I don’t know how many… fifteen, twenty
years, or something.
I got to the point where the software
component of it became less and I was getting down into the
deep-sea secrets, if you will.
K: Yeah. OK. I would say maybe the philosophical side of it
began to draw you more.
C: Sure. Correct. And basically, I developed some software that
goes on out and eats large chunks of the internet. It reads
public domain stuff off of forums and other areas, sometimes
strays into chat groups. It’s not very deterministic and it
follows links, so sometimes when we set it off, we don’t really
know where it’s going to end up going in terms of what text it’s
going to eat. And that’s part of the whole thrill of it all, if
you will.
There’s a serendipitous approach to this because we tell the
software, which are called spiders, to sit on this server, open
up this one web page, go and find any key words on that web page
that we tell you out of this list to start with. And if you find
those words, read back a certain number of words and read
forward a certain number of words, copy that, do some stuff with
it, and if you find any links in there, well, have at it. Go
follow those and do the same thing down there.
And so it would go and eat some net and move and read more web
pages and keep going and going and going. And I think we’ve got
a 256 limit on how deep it can go, in links, before it has to
unwind and come back and go on to the next stage. So it can get
some huge amounts of text out of here, on the order of, usually,
about 90 million leads.
And a lead is a construct that we use, where we have 2,048 bites
fore and aft, if you will, of the key word that it found. It
constitutes a lead, but it also brings back the context of where
it found that. In other words if it’s in a gardening forum, if
it’s dating, car repair, whatever.
And some other information,
these kind of things...
K: But in essence… This is something Bill and I had been
discussing, asking each other whether or not you actually were
feeding it key words that you were looking for.
C: That part of the process is extremely unique and I don’t want
to go too deep into it because it actually is the real key to
the thing, I think, and it’s a trade secret. We do have a seed
list and we do have a seed list of 300,000 forums to begin
hunting in. But, no, it is not deterministic in the sense of
data-mining where we say: Go on out and count the number of
times you run across, you know, tire or wall or bridge or
something. It doesn’t work that way.
K: OK, but…
C: OK. Basically what it’s doing is this here’s a long column of
what we call context. These contexts can be thought of as the
name for a larger group of words. And you might give it 30,000
of these names to start with. And one of them might be forward
or energy and we tell it: OK, take the word energy out of this
long list of 30,000 words, go over and read the entire context
that we’ve got associated with that, and store that in your
memory. And that itself might be 30- or 40,000 words.
And then
go over to this website and see what you can match out of that
in the following manner. Make sense?
K: OK. It sounds even more complex than I originally thought.
Bill Ryan: What that tells me is that, instead, what you’re
doing, actually you’re looking for significant correlations. Is
that a better way of looking at it?
C: Correct. We’re no longer… We don’t actually even look at the
words, the words themselves. The whole thing was written in a…
The spiders and so forth are in a much more deterministic
software language called C, and some Perl script. Most of the
processing is done by Prolog. But the Perl script will go
through and do a match and replace, if you will. And from the
time we actually find any of the words we’re looking for, from
that point on, really all it deals with is a four-digit text
number that we assign to it.
And that’s just so we are not dealing with the word itself, but
we are indeed… Perhaps you heard that the government has this…
the US government has this software out there, that says: Hmm,
this fellow dialed that fellow on this phone number, or He sent
this fellow an email, and it tries to develop up the concept of
networks from it, right? Who’s talking to who.
Not about what,
but just who’s talking to whom.
K: Well, we actually heard that, you know, they do use key
words, though.
C: Oh sure. Sure. But basically what I wanted to come back to
was that Bill’s correct. Actually we’re not looking for the
words per se, nor the count of them, or anything but the
relationship between that word and other words, because we’re
looking for the nuance.
B: I can understand how by taking this very dated snapshot of
the web you can find out what’s happening now and what people
are looking at now. But how do you target specific points at a
future time, and a specific future time?
C: OK. So we send the spiders out and they go out and they find
out that oh oh… They get real excited and they come back and
they tell us that somebody’s using the word “jack”, like: I’ve
jacked my old lady’s car. OK?
Now, we think about that word… and basically a lot of this was
all down to slang anyways to get the idea across. We look at…
We’ve assigned… Let me back up.
I got a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary in the form of a
lexicon, just a list of all the words, way back when in 1994 or
something, about 300,000 English language words, right? And I
started assigning values to these things in a numeric way to
assign emotional relationships to them, so that I would say, you
know, that this word fear has an emotional relationship to
trembling, to stomach clenching, and all the other various other
ways in which fear impacts the human body.
And then I assigned a
numeric value to those that indicated the duration of that word
fear impacting, or that particular word impacting, on the body,
if you will.
So that anxiety had less of an impact on the body instantly, but
may be longer-termed duration than fear, because fear may be
instant, and you may literally empty your bowels and piss
yourself. But it may only last a few minutes. And then: Phew!
Boy, that train just barely missed me! And blah blah blah. But
after a few days it’s gone. On the other hand, anxiety may
dominate your life for decades. Does that make sense?
OK. So, to assign a value, what we did was, we had on each and
every one of these words, we assigned what we called a
durational value. In other words, how long does this word, at
its core level, have an impact on your particular future?
Some might be three days, some might be three months. And so in
the case of slang, usually the impact is short, immediate. It’s
the intent of slang to get across a new emotional context that
usually has much more greater immediacy, because your father’s
words are old and staid and they seem to have a longer duration
and they don’t really reflect what’s happening right now.
And so when we assign values we took that kind of thing into
account. So, thus, legal language has in fact a long term value
on it. So when our spiders come back, we say it came back on
such-and-so day, found such-and-so word, and such-and-so word
has this length of duration.
And we plot that on the calendar.
K: OK. But it’s the relationship between… And when you say you
actually tracked it in time, that was a value judgment on your
part.
C: Correct. It’s all arbitrary.
K: And it was based on a relationship between words to each
other and to life as we know it. In other words, it was subject
to your interpretation of what it means to, you know, as you
said, a value judgment basing… saying fear may last a shorter
time than anxiety. That could be an interpretation.
C: That is an interpretation, not a could be. I know that this
thing is entirely self-centric. What apparently makes it work is
that I’m not particularly egocentric and I’m somewhat of an empath, so that I’m… And I’ve been knocked around on the planet
all over and exposed to all kinds of people and all kinds of
languages and understand basically the emotive nature of how
cross-cultural archetypes work. And then I’ve done a lot of
research.
As I say, I educated myself in this in some serious
ways. So, yes, it is an interpretation but it’s a very educated
interpretation, obviously.
K: OK. Did you do this on your own? Or did you have partners
that you worked with?
C: No, no. I sat around and typed all this stuff up and all the
software noodled on it over… from ’94 to ’97, when I first
started really getting serious about setting down the data. I
happened to be running some servers and doing something else
with those servers, and I had some spare processing time here,
so while I was sitting here in my little office I got serious
about it and started the whole process off then. It took from
’94 to ‘97, basically, for the ideas to gel and for some of the
programming to get written.
B: How about other languages? Because the Chinese might be
talking about things that are different from what we’re talking
about in the western world.
C: Sure, they do it in different… and in fact, different
alphabets. Alphabets, to transliteration, to translation - all
of this really impacts. So we’re doing more than just simply
English language at this stage although we are English-centric
because that forms the core of our lexicon. We could of course
have millions of words and millions of languages but we’re not
up that far.
This is basically a garage operation with myself and a fellow
that has agreed to go by the name of Igor who is my server slave
and goes out and manages all my servers while I manage all of
the rest of the operation. And it’s just a, you know, basically
a two-man operation on this end and George Ure is our public
face and really about all the free information that we want to
give everybody in the sense of what we’ve got.
And that’s kind
of where we’re at.
K: Well, this is really fascinating because when you gave us
access to this information, I was actually delighted by the
sense of the absurd and also the warning at the beginning of
your interpretive reports, in other words, where you’re actually
linking up what seem to be key words or key concepts, and…
C: Yes.
K: …creating a storyline that might follow, where one event may
follow another, and then putting it in a sense, in time. But you
have a huge disclaimer at the beginning in which you actually
say point-blank to people that: You could be considered crazy if
you actually take this seriously or follow it.
C: That’s quite correct, and we have to do this. This is for
entertainment. We’re in a litigious society. The fact that the
Universe chooses to put any kind of substantiation behind our
words is not our fault. We can’t be blamed for any part of it,
failure of accuracy.
And let me point out that we recognize we’re in the forecasting
business, which is shading into fortunetelling. And on the other
side of that range you have prophecy, and that we’re going to get
involved with all those kinds of emotions. And we wanted to be
very clear about this.
We’re not doing prophecy here. We are forecasting, but since
forecasting, honestly, is future-telling, there is one sin in
future-telling and that is accuracy - good or bad. If you’ve
very accurate, that’s a sin. And if you’re not so accurate,
that’s a sin. And so we had to be very careful to sort of tread
a certain line, relative to the times we live in.
But we’re not out there bullshitting people. You know, we
charged a lot of money to get into our reports to start with,
and then we cut the price by three-quarters if you decide to
stay on as a continuing subscriber. And we’re running this
whole…
Our business model actually relates to what used to be known as
“private science,” that ran in the 1800s, where people would get
together on a subscription basis to fund a scientist doing a
particular project. And they got the benefits of that before any
of the public did, but they had no right of ownership of it. And
that’s kind of how we’ve decided what the model is going to be
here.
Internally we’re a pirate ship in the sense that we’re a
democracy. We make enough money to survive. We’re not after
wealth. If we ever got to the point where it was sustainable,
and fully funded, we’d just give it away free.
But the fact of the matter is, we have very high costs in
bandwidth. We’re eating up huge amounts of electricity with
servers. And so on. So I think I might fit into middle class in
the United States.
My server-slave Igor works doing this job and
then two others just to keep himself and his future wife going.
K: OK, but it also looks like there was a certain level at which
you wanted to kind of be a “gatekeeper” over this information,
to restrict access on a certain level, because it was, or could
be, you know, taken as very potent and/or, you know, I don’t
know what you want to call it. You said the word “hot” when we
talked in a conversation earlier about certain issues. And the
barometer for getting in is just raised really high.
C: Yes. And that’s quite deliberate. A) We needed a lot of money
to start with, and we need it every month, just on our
electricity and bandwidth costs, so we must raise those funds to
keep going. The other issue is that we did not want to take
funds from… Everything on this planet is in a state of flux.
There’s no such thing as a fixed point in anything, so we have
to look at things like a Taoist or a Buddhist, where
everything’s shading from one into the other. And it’s, really,
what part of the circle are we looking at?
So we’re in the future-telling business. We do forecasting and
some parts of that, you have people over there, you know, for
Wall Street, etc., doing a very piss-poor job. And then on the
other end of the spectrum you have individuals that you have to
watch out for, that are prophecy addicts.
And this really bothered me. I didn’t want the karmic debt or
interaction with those persons, that because of their age and
circumstances, are in the position of wishing to spend their
Social Security money on reading prophecy. And we shade close
enough to that that they might think that that was the case. And
so we were very deliberate.
And if I could afford to set it
higher, I would have.
K: OK, that’s very interesting and I picked that up. So what
we’re looking at here, and I know that this is why we brought
you onboard for the moment to talk with you, is that you had
made some very interesting, I don’t know if you use the word
“predictions,” but predictions… what seem to be predictions…
about your data.
C: We say forecast.
K: Forecast. OK, your forecast around the month of October. And
because, as Camelot, we have been inundated with information
about the month of October from various deep-black sources,
including some intuitive information that we ourselves were
getting.
And we have, I think Bill would say, 13 data-points that all
cross-correlated with the month of October, which is very
unusual in what we’ve been doing for the last two and half
years, which is collecting testimony from whistleblowers and
truth-tellers around the planet.
So because of that, we wanted to contact you and just have you
maybe describe, as you have done on other shows, what you’re
getting for October, and then kind of maybe try to drill down a
little bit, based on what we are getting.
C: Our information for October is part of a context that we’ve
been picking up for a number of years relating to what we call
“The Death of the Dollar.” We started talking publicly about
“The Death of the Dollar,” I think on July 4th, 2007, but we’d
actually been picking it up in the data a number of years before
that.
We have a tendency to see, to find, really big events showing up
years ahead of time and it takes us a while to sort through
everything and really get a handle on what was going on. The
closer we get to the event, the more data-points we get within
our source that allows us to get a broader picture. So, at this
stage, we’ve got a pointer that said we would hit a sort of an
emotional plateau.
Bear in mind that all of our stuff is basically built around a
numeric representation of what I think human emotions are,
relative to certain words, and I’ve used that form of input for
that as well. We had this data stream that said that around
9/22, around the 22nd of September, we would reach a point
where, from there until the 27th, we would have an emotional
plateau of some high level of what we call Building Emotional
Tension.
And Building Emotional Tension is the state we’re in right now.
And everybody who’s worried about the market knows exactly what
that feels like, and what it does to their digestion, their
sleep, etc., hair falling out, and so on. So, it’s probably
pretty self-evident.
And we then had data that suggested that there might be a little
tiny dip from 9/27 until October 7th in terms of the amount of
that building tension, but it was basically still on that same
plateau.
And then on October 7th.… And I chose…well, you know, the
Universe moved me to choose it, I chose ten minutes after 7 in
the morning, UTC time, which makes it ten after midnight my time
here on the Pacific coast on October 7th would be the point at
which we would slip into what I call Release Language.
Release Language is where everybody is letting out the emotion,
as opposed to letting the emotion in, in effects on their body.
They just can’t take it any more, and they’re expressing that
emotion. Good, bad, or indifferent, they’re expressing it. So
release has to do with expression. Building has to do with
input.
And we’re going to get into a period that goes from October 7
until… Now the new data run is showing it moved into about
mid-March of 2009, pretty straight-forward release language that
entire period, with no little stair-steps, if you will, in the
building-tension language.
It needs to be said that mostly life is up-and-down,
up-and-down, you know, good days/bad days kind of thing in our
giant collective.
We rarely…and in fact have never since 1997
seen anything in the models that looks like what’s going to happen
in October, from October through the first part of March.
K: And to make people aware of what you saw
during 911… You
didn’t see such a long release period, if I remember correctly.
C: No. That’s quite correct. There was about 6 days of a fairly
precipitous release following 911 and then there were three or
four days of less steep release. And then, basically on the 11th
day following 911, we were back into that stair-step building
period. We’d already, if you will, absorbed the emotional impact
of the event and were starting to respond and build emotional
patterns to cope with it all.
So if we look at the two in a comparison the… not the level, not
the intensity of the emotion, but the duration of the emotion,
is many, many, many times longer than what was felt after 911.
But that isn’t to say that it’s going To be emotionally as intense
that way continuously. That rarely would happen, I would think.
It could, but it just doesn’t seem to be too likely.
K: OK, but what about the actual event itself? In other words,
was the 911, I don’t know, “spike” if you will, matching the
spike that you’re getting on
October 7th?
Or is it much higher
for October 7th?
C: It doesn’t work that way, OK? Because our data can’t be
compared exactly from 2001 to now, because in the nature of our
programming we’ve refined our technique over time.
So we have to state that right out, that we’re kind of in a
sense like a doctor that discovers a new disease, and then over
the course of time gets really, really good at diagnosing. And
it spreads out - everybody gets really good at diagnosing the
disease. And all of a sudden you’re seeing statistics showing
that this disease is everywhere. And it’s just simply because
we’ve been able to look at it with a sensitization to the
process.
So we can’t make a direct comparison that way. Nor can we say
that there’s going to be a particular event at 7:10 in the
morning UTC.
That’s what I’m saying: That my model-space, with the best
granularity I’ve got, shows the whole planet starting to shift
over into release language.
There may indeed be an event, and I’m kind of expecting
something, but it need not be either visible on the global
media-screen nor particularly intense at that stage to start the
process off because we’re at such a huge level of building
tension.
The event could be as innocuous as someone showing up at the
LIBOR Bank early in the morning to go to work and the door being
locked and the key broken off in the door such that it takes an
additional four hours to get in. And LIBOR doesn’t open when it
should. And a fiscal tremor goes around the world that crashes
the whole financial system.
See?
K: So it could be a rather small actual event, is what you’re
saying...
C: Correct, correct.
K: …but what it portends, or what it results in, is of very long
duration.
C: Correct. Because that door was not locked. You know, for want
of a nail the horse was lost…
K: OK. I know that you said that, if I remember correctly… Like
on Rense, you talked about that there were actually proportions
within the actual event…
C: Yes, that’s correct.
K: …that there were military a certain amount, economic a
certain amount. Can you explain that?
C: Correct. But that’s not within the event. That’s within the
state of the model-space at the time the event occurs.
Bear in mind, see, we don’t do prophecy. We construct a highly
quirky and weird little interface in time in a model-space in
the computer and then advance it tick by tick by tick and watch
as it makes changes. And then, on top of that, we have to look
for something significant.
So what we’re seeing is, at the point at which this trigger
event or precipitating event, however we think about it, occurs,
the emotional tension balance is about 48% economic, shading up
to about 51% at the moment, but that may back down by the time
we get to October 7th. And then about 40 to 45% military.
Then
the rest is what we call Terra Intrusions, which is really Earth
changes kinds of things, hurricanes, that sort of deal.
K: But when you say it could be a small thing that lasts five
months in duration, it could be triggered by a tiny thing,
C: Correct.
K: Even innocuous.
C: Correct.
K: It could be something … I’m asking you…
C: it could be a calamity.
K: …whether it could be a virus for example, could be a release
of a virus that at first is actually not even noticeable.
C: I suspect that that won’t be the case in October. If that’s
the case, the virus has already been released, because what’s
going To happen is, the language shifts at that point. So somebody
starts talking about something at that point. Now, whether it’s
a whole lot of people talking about it…? Make sense?
K: OK, but there’s also, correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks
like you track what looks like “trends” in language.
C: Correct. Correct.
K: Because I’m noticing that some of your key words are things
like revolution, transformation, duality.
C: OK, they are meta data layers. Those are not key words.
What happens is that we build our model-space. It gets all
sliced up into all these various different entities, and then
over time we allow the Universe to give us words to populate
‘em. And it turns out that over time whole lots of words that
all fall under the context of Revolution showed up in the
markets entity, and showed up in our representations of the
populace of the US, and showed up in global populace
representation, and so on.
So these are not keys words. We don’t go hunting for those.
Those are derived contexts. And those are showing up
serendipitously. Rather, the data is coming back that nicely and
neatly sorts, in all of our entities, into those categories that
are headed by those words. And I sure hope that was
understandable.
K: Yeah, it’s kind of like packets.
C: Exactly.
K: OK. But I’m also interested in the way you’re looking your
data, such that you’re interpreting your data. Do you find that
looking at it changes it?
C: Yeah, Heisenberg… No, I don’t believe so. I don’t believe it…
If you’re talking about the
Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty
kind of thing in the immediate scene, no, I don’t believe that
that’s the case. Undoubtedly at a quanta level there’s some of
that going on. Now, if you’re asking: Because we see this, will
the Universe change? We don’t know about that.
K: OK. What about the idea that you’re… I mean, somehow I
stumbled on your information quite some time ago, although I
didn’t remember it as being associated with your website. Then
when you re-emerged, and you started to be, you know, sort of
have more of a media profile, if you will, which seems to be
even lately…
C: Right. Let me tell you why that is.
K: OK.
C: All right, let’s divert here for a second. Our model is built
in this software called InteliCAD. InteliCAD is an artificial
model-space, if you will, for drawing virtually any kind of an
object in a CAD sense – computer-aided design. It turned out to
be very handy for us because we can expand it at will.
Part of our problem is that if we have people read our reports
and then cut and paste the text out there, when our spiders read
their own words, then it’s considered to be self-reinforcing,
and we spiral down, and everything goes to hell in a hand-basket
real quick. So we have to be very careful about who reads our
reports so that we don’t get ’em out there cutting and pasting
this stuff wildfire, because we end up spiraling down and we
can’t do anything.
In order to help prevent this I developed this software. In late
2001 I started working on it and it went through 2003 and I
finally got it working and we called it MOMS. And that’s the
Model of Model-Space. And basically it’s a representation of OUR
work within the model-space, separate from the model itself, a
rather abstract, kind of screwy idea, but it works very well.
Within there, we model ourselves, for instance. And along about,
let’s say December of 2006, basically MOMS started being able to
put out some forecasts for us.
Now, this means I’ve got to divert for a second and say that my
particular approach to reading these forecasts is based on sort
of a non-western style of thought, and so I started taking them
seriously. And I thought to myself: Hmmm, wonder what would
happen if I started harmonizing with what MOMS says might be in
my future?
And that’s where we are now, because MOMS suggested that it was
a good time to get on out and “capture” October 7. So I said:
OK, MOMS, I’ll do it.
K: So in sense you’re running an experiment within an
experiment.
C: A radical linguistic experiment, correct.
K: OK.
C: … can the future be altered?
K: But going out there, that’s actually… gets back to my
question. For example, you’re talking to us right now.
C: Correct.
K: And we have quite an audience out there. And they’re going to
take this onboard and add this to the rest of the stuff we’ve
been telling them. And, in a sense, that could act upon the
event such that either it won’t happen, or…
C: Or it will.
K: …or it may be modified in some form or fashion. Is this…
C: So it could also be totally transformed.
K: Yes.
C: Let’s understand that release language could be good of bad.
Release language, for instance, might happen on, early in the
morning on October 7, because some idiot pushes a button and
starts off a nuclear bomb. Or releases a virus. Or does some
other nasty thing.
Release language could also happen because 25- or 35- or
100-million people wake up that morning and say: I’m not going
to
take this shit anymore. I’m going out there and stand there
until they arrest that guy. And something changes.
That kind of
release language is different, but it’s nonetheless release
language.
K: But are you able to tell the difference when you look at what
you’ve got, that it’s positive versus negative?
C: Positive and negative have an interesting connotation within
our work, and within the lexicon and within language itself. And
a lot of it is culturally based.
K: Well, how about constructive versus destructive?
C: Destructive. Yes, we are able to tell that. And at this point
in our reading, in terms of how we’re going through the data,
the release language from October 7 onward is not what anybody
would consider to be pleasant, so you may want to put a
deconstructive nature on it. It’s something that we must go
through. Let us understand that.
A revolution is a horrible, terrible, brutal thing in which lots
of emotions and people are shed, but it is a positive thing in
the end. Good, bad, whether they win or not, the revolutionary
means is positive. But it brings along with it a lot of
brutality and excesses and so on. But you’ve got to get that out
of your system, just the way that we must have the coming crash
in the economic system, which will start on October 7
regardless.
The data seems to suggest that, regardless of what the trigger
event is, over those next five or six months the economic system
goes from really, really nasty now to something we don’t want to
even describe.
K: That means that things like… I’m going to ask you here… Things
like food shortages…
C: Yes.
K: And specifically because you track English more than any
other language, is it focused on the US? Or is it because the US
keeps coming up? Because people do speak English all over the
globe and on the internet.
C: Rather the latter, and because everybody is so focused on the
US, mostly hating us, or denying that hate, if you’re inside
these boundaries, that all those emotions are focused on the US
whether you’re in the Amazon or you’re in Pakistan or wherever.
So, yeah, we have a tendency to be US-centric and I frequently
apologize to our international readers. We just can’t help that.
K: So what you are seeing in the future, at least in the next 5
months, linked to the October 7 economic situation, is that it’s
dire now but it’s going to be something…
C: Brutally true. OK. This weekend we’re putting up a new report
that continues to refine that, because we’re getting in new
data. In the market descriptors, the market section there, we’re
going to be describing it as brutally transformative.
K: Brutally transformative. In your lexicon, what would that
mean?
C: Well, that’s the return of the… over time, not instantly, but
the return of the equitable balance of population-to-resources.
Here we currently have a situation where 6 percent of the
population on the planet is using 28 percent of the biota. That
six percent had better get down to 6 percent, because that’s
what’s going to happen.
And any of the ramifications from that is
all speculation.
-
Will we have food shortages? Sure.
-
Will we have rationing on
everything? Sure.
-
Exactly where and when? That’s speculation at
this point.
But it’s actually occurring as we speak.
K: OK, but in five months’ time it will become brutal or
unheard-of and then continue from there.
C: OK. Imagine yourself right now in the United States, just a
walking-around, regular kind of a guy, and five months from now
you’ll be opening your eyes. Many of these people will be
encountering huge amounts of cognitive dissonance because it
will be as though they’ve walked out of their house to just
after the collapse of the Soviet Union and they’re living in
Russia.
K: And is this a rise in chaos?
C: Certainly. No question.
K: OK. So are you tracking chaos itself?
C: We do have a chaos subset of contexts, yes.
K: OK. And are you seeing a rise in chaos that continues up to
and beyond 2012?
C: No. Our data sets is… As a rule, we start losing granularity
at about 19 months. That’s because of the nature of language,
that most of the language, for instance, that might impact your
particular life in any given week that would extend beyond 19
months you don’t use. You would rarely use language that had
that level of duration. So granularity falls off after 19
months.
So we did have some spotty bits of information and we’re
starting to put together this new entity that we’re calling
FuturePop that is going to be about the populace that will exist in
about 2018 and what they’re going to be doing.
But there are curious sets of inconsistencies that are appearing
around 2012, and that’s probably because of
the emotional
response that everybody has to it.
But it could very well be due
to the biospheric conditions that we’re all going to be facing.
K: I found a really interesting point that was recurring in some
of these reports, which was talking about, in essence, what
appeared to be a battle with aliens.
C: Oh sure. Yeah, we’ve got really strange stuff in there that
suggests, for instance, that we’re going to go through a summer of
hell in 2009 here in the US that will precipitate a seething
anger and so forth into actual bloody revolution. AmRev-2 we’re
calling it. But it’ll just be part of a global wave of
revolution against what we call The Powers That Be.
This is also coincident with a meta-data layer that we call
Secrets Revealed, where events of revolution goes on. Certain
institutions will be captured by the populace and the data will
be released that’s been hidden for hundreds of years, which then
starts its own set of threads and means about revolution.
They’ve been duped.
And if we go forward in time through 2010, we get into the area
where we’re starting to get what we call Alien Wars… information
about 2011.
Now this has to be understood, that the granularity out there is
very sparse. We don’t have a whole lot of details. It does
appear that this is not some kind of false flag operation.
It
also does appear that humans are involved at many different
levels, not merely at a shooting level, but also as perhaps some
kind of a prize level, like, you know, we’re what everybody is
fighting over, that kind of thing.
K: Right. You talk about human body parts, etc.
C: Yes, exactly. Yes. Well, that’s actually coming from
the
release of all the Russian and other UFO information around the
planet these past few months. Once that hit all the various
different language boards, it really started coming out as to
how many of the crashes they had found human body parts
catalogued in.
K: OK. And just to come around to the election, because we
briefly talked about that. You said you don’t dial in on
personalities, but you do dial in on incidents that seem to be…
or the trends around those events, such that you talk a lot in
your papers about confusion around the election time.
C: Correct, which I think you’d have to agree we’re entering
into. The Republicans are confused as to with why McCain is
doing whatever he’s doing. And everybody’s confused about the
economy, and it’s all affecting this. And McCain’s even confused
about whether or not he’s going to debate [the first scheduled
national TV debate with Obama] and it’s getting more confusing
as we go forward.
We still have information that seem to indicate that McCain
could drop out due to health before the… actually near the end
of September, but really before the 15th of October. But it
doesn’t necessarily mean that…
Because we’ve already seen some of that language fulfilled. He
has withdrawn. He announced that he withdrew. It was from the
debate, not the campaign. But he suspended his campaign. So the
word campaign came in there, and it was due to the economic
health of the country. So it was sort of a quasi-hit. The
language we’d seen a year ago to that effect about this time
actually has started to appear.
And that’s… George Ure calls this a rickety time machine. And
he’s got a real good point. There are big gaps in the
technology. And it’s not like it’s foolproof. And this is why we
really have to worry about all these people that think it’s
prophecy and it’s going to be written in stone. It just does not
work that way.
When we’re right, we have a tendency to be absolutely,
spectacularly right. We refine it over time. We’re getting
better as we go forward, so maybe we’ll be a lot more right than
we have in the past. And in the past we’ve actually done, we
think, twice as good as chance should allow.
In that sense, maybe McCain will withdraw finally. In itself, it
might not be good, etc., etc, increasing confusion.
And we’ve
been talking about the fact that there’s just basically the
dominant word is confusion around the election, and we’ve been
reporting that since January of this year, but we saw it since
probably June of last year.
K: OK. One thing that I’ve noticed is that you actually were
talking about McCain dropping out [of the first debate] and yet
I think today in the news I actually heard that he has now
decided he will debate.
C: Sure, sure. That’s what I’m saying. The stuff we get is not
written in stone. What we saw was the appearance of language
that said: McCain / withdraw / campaign.
Now we didn’t know that
there would be other words in between there because of the
nature of what we’ve encountered. Beyond that, we didn’t know
that there would be any supposition.
Now, also we have to acknowledge, time is kind of strange.
McCain may yet withdraw from the campaign as a whole and all of
that language together was what we saw even though it was strung
out over a number of days.
K: So it sounds like when you find language that matches, an
occurrence occurs, in a sense it’s kind of like solving the
crossword puzzle, or in a way it’s almost like the Bible code.
The words themselves…
C: No, no. I would skip the Bible codes business, because the
Bible codes will work on any sufficiently long text. And even if
you were to unscramble our DNA and just put it out there, the
various key letters, the Bible codes will bring back what you
think might be meaningful. And that’s not how we do stuff.
But it is true that there is a… This is not deterministic, and
we don’t know exactly how time will work out. And there is some…
a whole lot stuff about this that we just don’t know, that we’re
learning as we go along. We’ve had new postulates form over the
last couple of years, which we sit down and noodle on this
stuff, and they appear to be reasonable theorems at the moment.
And one of the postulates is this idea that there is
bleed-through. And the idea of bleed-through is best illustrated
with the Sumatran tsunami, which occurred at the end of the
year. At the beginning of that year we got the words for 300,000
people dead or killed or missing / a nation pushed back to a
previous age / large earthquake / and electric-driven water.
And then we also got words that said courthouse emptied due to
the earthquake / famous personalities scrambling around due to
the earthquake as they scrambled out of the courthouse, and so
on and so on.
At the beginning of the year we couldn’t tell that it was two
separate events, that in that year the Scott Peterson trial in
California would be emptied due to an earthquake and all these
famous lawyers and stuff would go scrambling around with all the
media, as they all emptied the courthouse building.
And then
another six-plus months would happen and the 300,000 people
would be killed or missing and the nation would be shoved back
to a previous age.
K: OK, but in this case you actually didn’t get the name of the
nation. Is that right?
C: That’s correct.
K: OK. And you also didn’t…
C: And that’s deliberate.
K: …get California in the Scott Peterson.
C: Correct. And that’s deliberate because… See, here’s part of
our problem. On the internet we’re not actually after conscious
language. So we don’t go out and count the number of times
someone says California and match that up and say: OK, the
earthquake’s going to happen in California. We can’t rely on that
stuff because geographic references are so frequent. And we
can’t rely on someone saying numbers. So we work on archetypes.
So, you’re correct. Just like this year. We knew there was going
to
be a large earthquake. I sent out a warning to our subscribers.
George Ure put it on his
urbansurvival.com site some 36 hours
ahead of the Chinese quake. We knew there was just going to be one
great big whump of a quake. We had no clue as to where it would
be beyond certain boundaries. And we refine this over time.
So the next time we do an earthquake predication… which is for
December 10th through 12th. We think there’s going to be two very
large earthquakes. They’re not necessarily in the same place on
the planet, but they could be. We have some references that we
seem to think are valid for the Pacific northwest, where I live.
We also have some references for the band of latitude 32 degrees
north to 36 degrees north, which would cover places life
California, Japan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc.
And that’s
the best we can do at this stage.
K: Are you emotionally affected by your work at this point?
C: I tell you, I’m a depressed bastard, no question about it.
K: [laughs] Seriously?
C: Seriously. Oh yes! I have to work at… I’m very diligent at
maintaining an appropriate mental attitude, at maintaining my
health and those things that are important to me, and shutting
off the rest of it… because it is extremely depressing stuff.
And
I don’t report a quarter of what we actually end up seeing.
K: What’s your, I don’t know, “hit record” at this point, would
you say?
C: Well, I don’t know. I mean, we hit 2001. We had everything
but the terrorism word. We had military plus accident, and so
on. We got anthrax attack. We got the Columbia space shuttle
disaster. We got the disaster, the accident to the Greek
athletes prior to that Olympics. We’ve gotten the quake for
China. We’ve gotten another wedding quake, subsequent quakes in
Indonesia we picked up on.
We’ve been very accurate with economics. Some of our subscribers
made a huge amount of money because we told them about the
Brazilian oil fields to be discovered about 8 months before it
occurred and they bought in on Brazilian oil-hunting companies.
So, as I said, we figure about better than chance. About half of
what we say ends up manifesting in a way that we can say hit it
by time or the language descriptors.
And eventually probably
about 55% of the language ends up showing up even if we
misinterpreted it.
K: OK. Bill, did you have any questions that you wanted to run
by Clif at this point?
B: It’s been more interesting than [laughs] some of the
interviews I’ve heard because it’s focused on some of the
methodology and the technology behind the forecasting which I
and many other people find very, very interesting. The details
have really been covered elsewhere. What’s also interesting, I
think, to many of the people listening to this, is that you’ve
given some indication of your own personal involvement in this.
C: Yes, in essence I have to, because MOMS had suggested that
there were some unique things that may be linguistic experiments
to be tried here at this particular point in time. And I’m
willing to try that because the potential for gain outweighs the
risk.
And because, to be quite honest, we are at that huge crux from
now on. From October 7th onward we won’t return to the emotional
levels that we’re at now, in a positive way, until beyond 2012.
George Ure and I have decided that if we’re still here in 2013
we’re going to get together and party like it’s 1999.
K: OK. This is interesting, because you actually said there
would be a five month time after October 7.
C: Oh sure.
K: But what you’re now saying … you’re actually saying there‘s a
place that we’re at here, emotionally, that’s actually we’re
going to go down from here to 2012 - for the next four years?
C: OK. Up / Down. You really shouldn’t phrase it that way. Just
like Buckminster Fuller used to bitch at everybody, because
there is no up or down on this planet. There’s only closer to
the center of the Earth and further away form it. An in and out
kind of approach. So let’s not use pejorative terms like up or
down because that implies certain things.
However, the emotional tonalities that we’re living at the
moment, especially those tonalities associated with words like
normalcy and nostalgia, and all of this kind of thing, will not
be seen again. From October 7th onward, we won’t recover those,
as near as I can tell in my data.
And it may well be the case that, you know, those things that
come along, such as the global coastal events, subsequent
magnetic shifts, and perhaps even a crustal shift and the
destruction of most of the population on the planet, may indeed
be the reason for that.
I have to say that the
biospheric degradation, and the
changes
in the solar system, the magnetosphere, the heliosphere, etc.
etc. all tend to support the idea that the language is spitting
out to us, that the bizarre days ahead are - however
inconceivable - are basically our destiny.
We’re going to live through some of the strangest times that have
certainly been around on the planet for many thousands of years.
And on the other side of it, those of us who pop out, we
probably all ought to get together and say Whew!
K: So in a certain sense, you’re relying your entire model on
the “psychic-ness,” the intuitive psychic ability of people when
they’re speaking.
C: Yes, in a certain sense, because they don’t know that they’re
leaking out these changes. And I have some, if you will,
“hidden” knowledge that tells me that that’s a pragmatic way to
go. And that hidden knowledge comes down to a whole series of
enlightenment events I’ve had over the course of my life, and
that have got me to where I’m at.
I’m self educated. I didn’t go to college for linguistics. I
don’t have degrees in any of these things. I taught myself to
program. Anything I’ve created I’ve done on my own this way with
the assistance of those in the universe around me. And it has
chosen… the universe has chosen to provide me with some
enlightenment experiences that set my frame of reference outside
of what we might think of as “normal.”
And that has aided me in
this ability to do this.
K: That’s evident in what you write. And, you know, I have to
say that we’re very lucky that a person such as yourself came up
with this sort of modeling technique.
C: OK, there we would disagree, see, because I don’t believe in
luck.
K: OK.
C: The universe wanted this to happen and it created this way so
this confluence of events is precisely…
K: By virtue of who you are, this is why it was created the way
it was created.
C: Exactly. Exactly. The universe said: Well we need this thing,
you know, in this time, so let us start altering and working on
this particular human. And, by the way, before I incarnated I
checked out everybody and said: Oh that would be an interesting
life to live, and plopped into that human. And here we are.
K: [laughs] OK. I think that that’s really great and I happen to
agree with that perspective. One thing that I’ve noticed about
reality is that in many ways when… if you want to track it, we
are aware of what’s coming because in a certain sense it’s
already happened, because time is actually not linear.
C: Correct.
K: So I think that that must also be influencing what you’re
talking about when you say, in a sense, that most people know.
It sort of invades their language, if you will. Their
consciousness is revealed by their language and their choice of
language.
C: Yeah, it actually ends up being… As we say, it leaks out.
Even if they wanted to stop it, I don’t think they could.
K: Exactly. They can’t help it because they actually do know.
It’s actually true that we actually do know and therefore we
choose, based on our knowing, without knowing that we’re doing
so. Or at least some of us.
C: We also have to work around the limitations of the human
brain relative to that as well, because the human brain has been
engineered to perceive time in a linear fashion. And at the same
point, the mind is non-linear. So there’s that kind of like
duality, both/and, juxtaposition kind of stuff there. So there’s
sort of a bleed-through both ways within the individual.
And then, because most individuals are in a state of denial
about the true nature of reality, it expresses itself, as we
say, in the bleed-through or the leaking out of the psychic
impressions.
K: But there’s also the levels at which you experience it. In
other words, when you’re talking about this modeling technique,
in a sense when you’re in one sense of the mind, if you will,
where you’re not being linear, then it’s actually not a problem
because you see the long range and you sense that this is
actually going to be good in the long run although it’s going to be
difficult to go through.
C: Well, yes.
K: But if you’re in a linear state...
C: It’s rather frightening, yes. You feel trapped there.
K: If you’re in a linear state, you tend to sort of “Pavlov”
into the fear mechanism and so on.
C: Right. And, you know, the Taoists say that an ordinary person
sees everything as a curse or a blessing, and the aware observer
or the enlightened being or the sage, however you want to label
’em, sees everything as a challenge. And that’s quite true,
because “good” and “bad” are labels we apply.
So, those people that are trapped in the linear view of the
world are indeed subject to this up-and-down, up-and-down, and
they’re suffering greatly at the moment, especially on this
economic stuff. And they’re going to suffer even worse in the
coming months and that’s expressed in the language that they’re
pre-saying now.
And so, all of our words, our whole language actually encodes
all of this information. It’s just layer upon layer upon layer
that could just drive you crazy if you start me off on it.
Because … Pre-saying, pre-sage, fore-cast … look at the roots of
the words, the etymology of how all this evolved. And you see
that we’ve been doing this for countless generations. And our
own language, taken from ourselves, encodes deeper levels of
meaning than our conscious mind is aware of.
And I’m not talking about the funny fellows that are going out
doing reverse speech and trying to find hidden information and
stuff like that. I’m talking about just linguists, and what they
know about how closely connected our particular expressions of
language, no matter what language we use on the planet, and DNA.
DNA itself is a language. And it starts tunneling in, and you
start getting all these cross-connections.
And you end up with a
view of the universe that says: Hmm, wonder what people are
saying today.
K: Right. Well, that’s actually very good. In a sense, for an
example, if you say death, it can appear to be very limiting,
but if you say release, you’re actually talking about death but
it’s from a very positive point of view.
C: But I’m not into sugarcoating anything. I come from a
tradition that is… I’ll be flat-out about it, it’s Aikido, and I
follow Osensei‘s metaphysical approach to things. And that
relates all the way back to what’s known as The Complete Reality
School of Taoism.
So no, death is death and needs to be treated as death. And
it’s… Positive or negative is someone’s personal view of how
they’re going to deal with that. And all death is traumatic and
painful until the moment of separation and unconsciousness. It
doesn’t matter. And there are “positive” deaths, you know, good
/ bad. I’ve been involved with a lot of deaths and the
after-death experiences of people. And it’s… You got to face it
flat-out.
I don’t like sugarcoating.
K: Right, except that you, you know, you yourself are using this
word release language and it’s kind of, there’s something about
that…
C: But that’s different.
K: …that is… Actually, as you’re tracking, each word does
contain an emotional connotation and actually the nature of the
word release has within it certain enlightenment aspects.
C: Correct. And release is in the context of... If we go into
our death context within our model-space, you’ll find the word
release in there, but release is being taken at a broader and a
different context in this case where we’re just talking about
the expression.
But it could be. And there’s nothing to say that all of the
fearfulness, the wave, if you will, the big bubble or envelope,
of people being afraid of the mega-death that is coming is
expressing itself in everyone worrying about pandemics and all
these other things, as well as people worrying about the
kill-off from The Powers That Be.
That is probably, in the nature of our work, a giant level of
future knowledge. The fact that we’re afraid of it, the fact
that we’re discussing it, the fact that we’re actually involved
with those words at this time tells us something about what’s
coming down the next few years.
K: In other words, a sort of a self-warning.
C: Correct.
K: OK. Well this has been very, very interesting and I can see
how you can really go down a rabbit-hole [Clif laughs] as far as
layer upon layer…
C: Yes.
K: …and getting into this. By the look of things, do you think
that, for example, and I know in a sense you maybe haven’t been
at this long enough, but is it possible that you could be
looking at an event and a whole, you know, structure of things,
that actually suddenly could shift or change and go in complete
opposite direction to what you thought it was going to be?
C: Oh sure. We’re wrong all the time. That’s why I say release
language could be good release language - Hooray, hooray, the
parade’s passing - or bad release language, you know - Oh how
sad that the dog died. That kind of thing. Right? So release
language is neither good nor bad but we could be certainly
misinterpreting it.
We could have from October 7 until sometime in the end of
February that everybody could be quite happy because the
politicians get it right for once, the banks cooperate, the
Federal Reserve does the honorable thing, and so on and so on
and so on. And we’re all happy with the economic condition and
then everybody lays down their arms and isn’t shooting at each
other any more and the Israelis and Palestinians embrace each
other as their long-lost cousins that they truly are.
Now you
tell me if the odds favor that.
K: OK. But what I really want to know is not whether the odds
favor that, but whether or not the language and the model you’re
tracking indicates that. And my guess is that it does not.
C: It doesn’t. No. And I believe that we would pick that up. I
don’t believe we could be on that side of duality without
knowing we were there.
K: OK. So is it possible for you to say at this time that there
is a positive change or that there is an action that people
could take that would change, for example, what seems to be a
timeline, if you will, that they’ve agreed upon, pre-agreed
upon.
C: Ah… not that I’m aware of. I’m not that smart. And I hope
that that would be the case. I kind of like the idea that maybe
we could all get together and decide that this particular set of
fears isn’t going to be realized. And that was certainly the
premise of the generation I grew up in and all of the political
action in the ’60s.
Whether it actually works at a timeline level, I cannot say.
There’s nothing I can recommend. I would be very… As I say, I’m
no one’s guru. I’m just out here, I’m more like the Oracle at
Delphi. And you take from it what you can and intrude into your
life with it. And some people have been successful at doing
that, and others haven’t. So, you really don’t want me to say:
Oh, go and do x, y, and z.
And I don’t want the karmic
implications of that.
K: No, but I did see a positive event that had to do with
chemtrails that you talked about.
C: OK.
K: There’s going to be an event such that it’s going to clear the
skies, you even said.
C: Right, but that may not be positive, because the chemtrails
appear to be The Powers That Be attempting to change the albedo
of the planet and to reflect back radiation. All other
suppositions as to their activity seems to be secondary.
If they’re gone, we may suffer greatly. We don’t know yet.
Chemtrail pilots and those people that put the whole program
together may be absolute heroes, even though they may end up
killing, you know, untold numbers of humans. Maybe other untold
numbers of humans will survive and the species will flourish
because we were able to reflect radiations that are incoming and
there won’t be that level of damage.
We don’t know…
K: Well, let me ask you this. If… In a sense, my understanding
of chemtrails is… You’re saying the secondary effects may not be
positive, but the primary might be exactly what you say it is.
But if it’s secret language and it’s not released, how is it
that you think you could be tracking it? Because my
understanding of what the chemtrails are doing is something else
entirely, and it sounds like you haven’t tapped into that. If
it’s secret, it’s not going to be talked about.
C: Right. But we don’t deal in things that are talked about. We
don’t count words. We deal in archetypes and then, up through an
interpretation, we apply them to what we see around us.
So, for instance, we’ve got an archetype of a maritime disaster
that would cause the whole United States to go into a great
sorrow. And we’ve got all of this information. And it turned out
not to be maritime per se, because we were off in the
interpretation of that archetype. And we should have just
translated it as “the ship” and then matched it closer to
reality and decided that it was the Shuttle, the space ship.
So we did some of these things wrong. But at the same time, we
don’t deal in conscious words per se. We deal in the archetypes
and let it bubble up from that.
So our understanding of chemtrails comes from the archetype that
The Powers That Be are
intensely scared and scared at all these different levels. One of the things they’re scared about is not
going into an ice age. If we don’t go into an ice age, as in
Lovelock’s book,
Gaia is doomed to go the way of, supposedly,
Venus. We get extra-hot and everybody’ll die off.
And so, usually at this particular point in our orbital
permutations we get to the 100,000-year cycle and we go into a
mini ice age, which cools everything down, refreshes the oceans,
etc., etc. That is not occurring at this point because we’re
lining up with the dark rift on the side of the galactic
central, and we’re getting extra radiation coming on in, which
is heating everything up. Everything from the GRBs, the solar
radiation, the heliosphere radiation pouring on in, etc., is
raising the temperature on all the planets, in spite of the fact
that, at this point in our cycle of 100,000 years, we should be
cooling down, to the betterment of the planet.
So The Powers That Be got really scared and at least at one
bespoke level of their internal fear they wanted to react and
change the albedo by putting up a radiation shield that would
cool the planet down as though we had glaciers all over the
place, as though we had gone into the ice age. They hoped to
trigger it that way.
Now, there’s also all kinds of other fears buried way down deep
in the archetype that goes to some really strange stuff, like
they’re really afraid of the pineal gland in humans.
K: Right. The consciousness of our own power. And, on top of
that, also alien invasion. And on top of that, what about
Planet
X? And what are you getting in that respect?
C: The Planet X stuff is a non-starter. It appears to be almost
100 percent disinformation from our viewpoint, in terms of what
we call SKED: Subject Knowledge Elucidates the Domain. It’s an
analysis technique. And within our data-sets none of the Planet
X material is as it is mythologically defined within our current
culture.
So, yeah, there’s probably large-sized asteroids, etc., zipping
around, and even some mini-planets. But there’s no giant dwarf
star kind of thing that’s going to come on in and cause that kind
of problem - because the solar system, at one point, cannot
survive such a thing.
That does not allow… For instance, the whole mythology does not
allow for what we call quanta effects of interplanetary kinds of
material. In other words, not just gravity, but there’s also
antigravity, a repulsive force. And so, those kinds of things
intrude on the idea.
Plus, in our data-sets, Planet X is within a very deep subset of
what we call the SpaceGoatFarts, in an area of disinfo
(disinformation). We’ve
never shown any of the Planet X info emotionally, in the context
in which we use, to come out of that category.
K: OK. But it sounds like you’re putting your interpretation in
terms of the science that you know versus not being able to talk
about the science you don’t know.
C: OK. There is that. That certainly is the case. But absent
that, the whole idea of the context of Planet X as was
originated and is mostly… most completely embodied by the
zetatalk thing… that has never come out of the disinfo bin in
our SpaceGoatFarts. Now, there’s a whole lot…
K: Now what about Nibiru? In other words, are you having
problems with the choice of language here?
C: No no no. Because we’ve got it modeled on the various
different parameters, all the way going back to
Sitchin and
everything. And besides which, he’s was a very poor linguist and
mostly did a lot of bad translations on some stuff.
But the best representation of that kind of a model is a couple
of the scientists out there -
Paul La Voilette who is working
on the
electric universe model etc., and their concept as to how
these small little intrusions are going to act.
So, I’m sorry, but we don’t show Planet X. We also show all
kinds of things that are current in pop culture as falling in
that bin where we don’t have an emotional archetype that
supports them outside of the disinfo category.
K: OK. When you say you don’t have an emotional archetype that
supports it, is it possible that you… there is a reason why you
wouldn’t have an emotional archetype?
C: Sure. There are some artifacts within our processing that
could certainly occur. I question… We have these debates
internally, and I question sometimes whether, for instance, we
would be able to accurately predict a meteor that would come on
in and attack the planet, because it’s so far out in left field,
so to speak, that humans wouldn’t necessarily be cognizant of
it.
However, if we’re working on the alternate view of reality, that
we’re all interconnected in the common mind, and our minds are
impacted by every other mind etc., etc., in a giant network,
then I don’t see how anything in reality could occur that could
not communicate to that mind.
So the fact that I don’t particularly have a model shouldn’t
matter that much because it should reveal itself in the
language, and I shouldn’t have to root around and discover what
that is. Just for instance, I did not have terrorism modeled.
And words showed up that said military / accident / money center
/ within 85 days of the middle of July. And it turned out to be,
of course, the attack on the
WTC and 911.
And I didn’t have
terrorism modeled.
K: OK, but I would counter that by saying because it wasn’t
perpetrated by terrorists.
C: Well, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Everybody applied
the label of terrorism to it. So the fact that my people are
applying the label of
Nibiru or Planet X or whatever … it’s
applying to an underlying context that should show up if in fact
that were some emergent basis in the fear.
In other words, we got a context, again one I had not modeled:
electric-driven water. And if I’d been smart I would have said:
Force-driven water. Hmm, what kind of force could drive water?
And then it would have dawned on me: a tsunami. But I never even
thought about it. I went the other way. I thought: Ooh,
electricity, storms, giant storms, hurricanes that happen at the
same time as the earthquake.
Well, I was wrong about that. Electric-driven water was pretty
straight-forward, but we did not have any emotional quantifiers
attached to the word tsunami in our lexicon.
K: OK. Now I see you reference
hyper-dimensional physics,
though, rather repeatedly in your documents here.
C: Correct.
K: And I think that’s really interesting. So, are you able to
talk about things like how that impacts what’s going to be
happening to us as we move into the galactic center? And what’s
going on with, for example, the Face on Mars, the pyramids,
19.5, things that
Hoagland talks about, for example?
C: Sure, and actually that developed because… A few years back I
started another thing, that the entities were shifting around
and we had to do some things… Like, we had this big entity which
we called Bushco, which was the amalgamation of
the Bush
Administration and the Corporatocracy. And it severed. And it
came into the Bushistas and then in the markets etc. So the data
changes on us enough to force us to look at this.
And a few years back we started getting all this Unknown
Energies from Space business. We didn’t really have a bin to
throw it in. It was tucked into the Terror entity, or sometimes
it would show up in the GlobalPop or the AmericaPop subsections:
subsets-science, subsets-government, etc., etc.
And we’d get all these repeated bits of information that
appeared like they all wanted to go together. So we decided: OK,
let’s create a bin. And we called it the SpaceGoatFarts.
And because it was going to be in that area that we’d hold all of
our unknown and officially-denied space-based, but also
interdimensional, also, you know, basically hyper-dimensional,
and all of this kind of stuff. As that data-set… As that entity
has grown over time and pulled in more and more sets of data on
its own, it’s forced us to examine this kind of stuff and to
follow some of these rather intriguing subjects, like
hyper-dimensionality.
Now, I have to say that I’m aware of all of this about
electricity since way back when. I knew about the electric model
before even getting into the work I’m in now. And I’m also an
aficionado of Buckminster Fuller’s work that he did through
synergetics. So a lot of this stuff that is being expressed at
the level of hyper-dimensional physics has been out there in
various different places on our planet in various different
formats and you could have gone out and picked up little bits
and pieces from here and there.
What’s interesting is how many people have done just that and
are putting them all together. And then we have to ask
ourselves: Why are they being motivated to do it now?
Well
probably because we need to know about it now.
K: OK. And then one last question and I’ll let you go because I
know this has gotten quite long.
C: Oh, I’m fine, we can chat all night. I’ve got coffee.
K: Really? OK. There’s a lot of talk about going from the third
to the fourth to the fifth dimension - the actual Earth itself - as a result of the transformations that are happening on the
planet. Have you been getting information about that?
C: We may be. I have to be somewhat vague because, again, it’s
an issue of do we have it modeled correctly? In our
SpaceGoatFarts entity, we have a subset called unknown and
within that we have another subset called energy, and it splits
off into these various different areas.
There appears to be a whole lot of information about extra
energy coming in from space. The data-sets might be reflecting
major changes at levels that might go down to what we call the
ESR or the Electron Spin Resonance. So, who knows what that’s
going to cause?
Would humans be able to adequately project the result of
something like the change in the electron spin resonance level
across the whole of the solar system if we get into some of
these energetic areas, in a way that we could meaningfully pick
up? I don’t know. We might be getting some hints that there’s
some huge changes along that level coming up.
As for popping into the fourth dimension… the fourth density or
something, we don’t have any words specifically towards that,
other than we’re picking up some of those that are coming from
those people that are promulgating that idea out there. We’re
not picking up any of the archetypes that I would suspect should
arise. It doesn’t mean that we won’t.
We’re just not at this
moment.
K: OK, because, for example, it seems to me that maybe an
archetype symbol would be the spiral.
C: [long pause] Yeah, but that’s all tied up in the idea of the
eschaton and the singularity and so on. It’d be awful hard to
separate that from those previous contexts and apply it.
We do see a whole… We do see mass kinds of changes coming in at
various different levels that are affecting the data at
unexpected places. And they’re pointing to things like, as I
say, the pineal gland.
And in this coming report we’re going to write about fluoride
because there’s going to be a huge emotional wave building in 2009
about the damage that was done to people as a result of
fluoride and its interaction with the pineal gland.
And a lot of people
are going to be very, very, very upset because they will feel that
something has been stolen from them.
And I think that what
they’re going to be feeling is that the potential or capacity
for a better expression of humanity has been stolen from them,
once they know certain information.
K: Wow. OK, well I’m… Thank you. This has been really
fascinating. And I’m sure that we could go on all night but I’m
going to let you go here.
B: Clif, thank you so much for sharing so much with us. This has
been very, very interesting.
C: Sure. Any time. And, you know, like I say buona fortuna to us
all. You know, good luck to us all. We’ve got some hard times
coming, so everybody needs to, you know, get strong to go long.
K: OK, well this has been great and we would love to check back
in with you, hopefully after October sometime, maybe in late
October or even November.
C: Sure, sure.
K: OK. All right. Take care and thank you very much.
C: OK. Thank you, bye.
K: Bye.
