26 September 2008

from ProjectCamelot Website



Telephone interview transcript


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.



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.

This has been Project Camelot and this is Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan. It’s Friday, September 26, 2008.


Thank you very much.



Original audio