Clif High - 20130504 – Clif High Audio #34

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 4, 2013 - Clif High

01:41:50

20130504 – Clif High Audio #34

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning.
	It's 5.07 a.m.
	May 4th, 2013, here in the Pacific Northwest of North America, Planet Terra.
	We're supposed to be hot for the next week or so.
	They've kind of slacked off on the chemtrails, and that's what always happens.
	We get clear skies and entirely different weather.
	So that'll be a nice change.
	Maybe.
	We'll see.
	The people up here in the Pacific Northwest are referred to as mossbacks because it's rainy and moist up here in Washington that moss grows on your back.
	And so, you know, if it gets too hot, the moss dries out and you feel a little uncomfortable.
	Anyway, so today's Wujo is all about the global coastal event.
	But before we get into that, I needed to stop and talk for a second about fear.
	Let me go way back.
	I like to think about things really deeply.
	And I used to have a lot of time to do that when these corporations were shoving me into these aluminum cans and shipping me all over the planet to do work upon arrival.
	And so in the transit time, I would sit there and think about things.
	And I thought about emotions for a long time and applied that thinking to our work by going through basically a stripped-down version of the Oxford English Language Dictionary to start and applying emotional numeric quantifiers to each and every one of the words that made sense.
	Didn't do articles and some of the prepositions and such.
	Anyway, and so the nature of the thinking about emotions led me to discover that fear is entirely based in the, in fact, the entire complex of fear emotions are entirely based in the solar plexus area around your abdomen.
	Turns out you've got this second neural mass that is very much like the same, exactly the same kind of neural mass that you have in your brain, only this surrounds your intestines and connects to the brain by this vagus nerve at the back that runs up along the spine.
	And that's how you get fear impulses.
	So there's other emotions that come from the gut, and we get some real intelligence from there, but we also can get overwhelmed by the fear emotions.
	Fear emotions do not live in your brain.
	You can get all kinds of fixations or complexes that are associated with fear, but the fear itself comes from your gut.
	So a couple of things before we get into the data here.
	Anytime one finds oneself in a situation where you recognize that you're being trapped by fear, you will note that your stomach area knots up.
	Your breathing becomes shallow because your stomach area is knotting up.
	It's preventing the diaphragm from really extending down.
	And so you're breathing in the upper part of your lungs.
	That's a very key clue that you're getting into a fear mode.
	And so one thing you can do to get out of that is to deliberately, explicitly, breathe very deeply by inhaling in such a way that the diaphragm goes down and the abdomen fills up.
	So you're not trying to fill up your top part of your lungs.
	You're trying to fill up the very deep part of your lungs.
	And if you'll actually do that, you can break this fear grip that is on you because it will force your body to relax around the abdomen.
	And the body is really weird.
	The mind can control it, it, or the body can control the mind.
	The pathway goes either direction.
	And so these parasympathetic nervous system things, like the ability to control your breathing or to allow it to be automatic, allow one to get at these emotional complexes such as fear.
	So all you have to do is just breathe in deeply all the way into the abdomen.
	And it causes the muscles around your stomach to relax.
	And if you do that a couple of times, you will notice the fear going away.
	It gets to the point with people that are in combat situations, and also people that are, I'm sure, artists and performers who have performance anxiety.
	You'll frequently see that they do breathing exercises.
	Or, more commonly, if you have public speaking anxiety and so forth, you may find yourself vomiting.
	Well, that's the ultimate expression of the fear.
	It's got such a good control over your internal organs and everything that's squeezing and pumping in all those hormones, and you've just got to get everything out because it just is extremely uncomfortable under there.
	And so, another thing you can do, unless it's absolute nausea, if it's fear-induced nausea, you can usually get rid of it by plugging up one nostril with your finger, just push on the outside of your nose, doesn't matter which one really, and breathe in with the other one very deeply, and then alternate.
	In doing this, alternating breathing for two or three breaths in each nostril, you'll find that you will have calmed down your internal organs and may indeed have removed any kind of a threat to fear-induced vomiting.
	So, now, that having been said, the reason I bring it up is because there's a whole lot of people that are very afraid of the future and the potential for what our narrative has called the global coastal event.
	Now, bear in mind that's my narrative.
	I chose those words.
	The reason I chose those words will be explained as we go forward here.
	But what I want to caution everybody is these are words that were highlighted by my intelligence, which is warped by my experience.
	And so, my narrative need not be a defining one for your experience of the future, should we go through, and I'm quite sure we will, any level of nastiness in these next few months and years.
	And so, you get to define your own narrative, you get to define those events that you go through, and you need not be bound by mine.
	And thus, the words that I choose should not be used as a source for your fear of these upcoming events.
	You know, I have a tendency towards choosing specific words that are more on the extreme side, especially when it comes to the negative extreme, simply because of the way in which language presents itself in our work and because of the juxtaposition of that with my own twisted mental state, in which I prefer certain levels of drama.
	I mean, I used to read Edgar Allan Poe and this kind of thing.
	So, there are certain word sets that are attractive to me, and they will naturally appear and be extracted should they appear.
	And this is one of the things that has indeed caused a potential issue with what I have called the global coastal event.
	First off, it's not a single event, it's a series of Earth changes, solar system changes actually, that we're going to live through, or not.
	Many of us will not live through them.
	And in fact, everybody alive should note one thing: at some point in the future, you won't be.
	And so, you need to get reconciled to the idea that your death, your mortality, is something that you live with, and you need to adjust your reality such that it's just part of what you do.
	And now, it may be that we all are precipitously propelled into a confrontation with our mortality by upcoming events.
	And again, the discussion on fear.
	Remember, breathe deeply, bust up that fear grip on your abdomen, and then you can think a little better.
	Okay, so our fear knots and nausea and so forth are gone.
	And so, we think for a minute about the narrative that Cliff at Half Past Human has come up with that he's labeled the global coastal event and how it occurred.
	And that began in 2003 with this particular data set that started arriving, mainly filled with longer and shorter-term value sets.
	And these data sets were interpreted, and we had a bunch of strange kind of data in there.
	We had sets that seem to indicate that fishes would be swimming over the steps of a capital, as in a capital of a country or a city or something like that, or a state or something.
	And we had data sets that showed the water retreating from the coast and causing problems with ports.
	And then we had data sets with the water coming back in and flooding out the ports, including refineries and such.
	We actually had both sets.
	It wasn't as though there was a connection such that it was a description of action, as opposed to it was a separate set of descriptors.
	So, we had one set of descriptors that said that some ports would have water retreat, and we had other sets that said water would inundate, and we would get into flooding.
	These are not mutually exclusive, or would only be so if applied to the same port.
	And there was nothing in our geographic data that seemed to suggest that was the case.
	So, I don't know that the data that the water is going to slosh out and come back in.
	Tsunami style, just that we had some data sets saying, here's the situation.
	Then we move our model space a little bit forward by a day or so, and we see that there's a generalized retreat from the coastal area, that much of the coastal infrastructure is damaged to the point of not being usable at the moment and needing vast levels of repair.
	We saw data that said electricity would be lost, that nuclear power plants would be damaged, coast-based power plants would be damaged, that ports would be gone, that bridges would collapse, that in some regions we would have issues with inland flooding overtopping things like levees and it couldn't get out.
	And so there'd be like new inland seas, there'd be oceanic intrusion into low-lying inland basins, and so on.
	Your basic, what I ended up calling the global coastal event, showing pretty much a generalized destruction and devastation of the coast all over the planet.
	Now, our global coastal event was never simultaneous.
	We actually had some clear indications that the water issues for Finland would be a lot less, much more mild, and a lot later than the water issues for Los Angeles.
	And this naturally follows because it takes a long time for energy to move all around the planet in the oceans.
	So our global coastal event was not simultaneous.
	Not all coasts are going to be involved simultaneously.
	Now, in our 2003 data set, as with all of our data sets, we don't really get a date.
	Rarely would there be any bespoke date in the data pop-up where it says, you know, March 16th, you know, 2013 or anything.
	We just don't get that.
	We do have indicators of time, and we basically sort of count days and see, get an estimate of time from the appearance of the data to the period in which the data seems to be forecasting some manifestation.
	And so our approach to time, global coastal event and all other things included, is not fixed.
	We don't have a calendar date.
	It's not in any way calendar based.
	It's fundamentally a, oh, we started picking up these data sets here on this day, and these data sets seem to be affecting us in 16 days, so we count out 16 days from the day we got the data set.
	Now, in some cases, we were counting out years, decades even.
	And so in 2003, we first started getting these data sets for what later I termed the global coastal event.
	Because, of course, the data came on slowly, sporadically, and was collected and stored and then eventually looked at.
	It didn't come in as whole cloth.
	The data sets began in 2003, and the largest mass of them were acquired over the next four years up through 2007.
	And we got a very large picture view of what was termed the global coastal event by then.
	And it's global, and it's coastal around all the coasts of the planet.
	We'll feel some effect of it.
	The real misnomer, I think, is event.
	I should probably have chosen some better phrase, but we're stuck with it now.
	The chain of events within our global coastal event, we had no initiating time for.
	Initially, in 2003, I thought it might be 20 years out because it was at the very far edge of our long-term data.
	And then other elements that were within that set started showing up in other sets as basically setups or precursors to this overall thing.
	This overall series of phenomena that basically we could call a round of earth changes or whatever that I had labeled the global coastal event.
	Now, some of these precursors, even as early as 2003 and 4, had happened, because within that global coastal event data set were the early sets for a bunch of earthquakes, including the Banda Achi earthquake.
	And sad to say, it was the accuracy that we had with the data for the Banda Achi earthquake and tsunami that leads us to believe that the global coastal event data is accurate.
	So I'll have to explain that.
	We had numbers, which were very rare, show up with the Banda Achi earthquake, where two particular sets were headed by the phrase 300,000 dead.
	And then the other phrase was a nation kicked back to a previous age.
	And it was Stone Age.
	And in both cases, we were surprisingly accurate in those numbers about eight months before the event.
	And accurate about the effect of the tsunami in terms of turning Banda Achi basically back to the Stone Age, washing everything away.
	And so those were within the same set of data that brought out the other elements that we came to call the global coastal event here and discuss it under those terms.
	So it's not just a random data set.
	It's a data set that has a track record.
	As we've gone forward over time, a number of the elements within this data set have indeed shown up.
	So far, there have been very few that have not, and those that have not are associated with basically the onset of the global coastal event.
	All the others that were precursors, if you will, within that same data set have indeed manifested.
	So that gives us a great deal of confidence, sad to say, that some element of the global coastal event descriptors will indeed manifest.
	Does that make sense?
	It's basically a data set that is so large that we can track some of the elements, and if they appear and we get a very high level of those things appearing relative to the others, then we're more confident of the others showing up sooner or later.
	It's kind of like, well, if you started down a trail in the woods and you found a breadcrumb, and then another breadcrumb, and another breadcrumb, you'd start to get to expect more breadcrumbs would show up.
	And the odds are that you might be right, in a sense, if you're following a trail of them.
	Again, I need to note that our global coastal event had no data explicitly pointing to a year.
	We had a number of sets that seemed to indicate that the initial onset of the data was at least 10 years away from the onset of the series of changes that we had lumped together under the term global coastal event.
	And so that would have placed it in 2013 from the point of appearance in the year 2003.
	And we now find ourselves in the year 2013 and we're contemplating this situation.
	The data has, over this period of time, shown that that data set was very prescient indeed.
	We've mined it for all that was worth, and it was very, very productive.
	So we are at this stage, and now we end up having to basically ascertain how much anticipation do we put in on the remaining parts of the words that go towards this global coastal event.
	And you have to understand, like I say, that I had no, other than a counting that seemed to indicate at least 10 years out, I had no data signed to our global coastal event.
	So I was just, you know, basically fat, young, and happy.
	Well, actually, I was old, thin, and miserable, but happily collecting data without any really anticipation of any kind of a terminus or a finite line in the sand sort of thing.
	And the data sets that I had showed certain context would exist at the time of the global coastal event.
	There would be all these things going on that we could say were part of the background in which this coastal event would appear.
	Some of these things would be the Israeli tension with their neighbors.
	Some of these things would be Middle Eastern war, people actually on a battlefield somewhere shooting at each other.
	It didn't have to be Middle Eastern.
	It was more desert described.
	It could be anywhere on the planet that was desert-like.
	And, you know, we've got people in Mali, we've got wars all over Africa, and so on.
	So this part of it is actually manifesting as well.
	We had economic distress described, we had social unrest described, we had governments gone batshit described, we had banks gone crazy.
	Basically, a lot of the context in which we are currently living had 10 years back, over the course of this past 10 years, been described very accurately by the data sets about this particular point in time.
	Now, we also had one real good clue that was buried within the data itself about the global coastal event, and that was this thing that I called the data gap.
	Now, the data gap was actually a series that was forecast as a series of data holes that would form tunnels in the data, if you will, the way holes are formed in Swiss cheese.
	And ultimately, all of the holes would join together to become one big, long, large data gap.
	And this data gap would be a project killer for us in the sense that we wouldn't be able to work after that because our input data streams would not be accessible.
	And so we would be out of business.
	And so this was like, oh, well, okay, I see this forecast here.
	It's interesting that the data gap was forecast in the same set as the main part of the Global Coastal event because we now find ourselves actually in a period of time when these data holes have formed.
	Initially, the data holes started in 2011 as a forecast with the Arab Spring, where the governments tried to shut off parts of the Internet.
	And then there was a quiescent period, which was forecast as well.
	And then the growth of the holes again.
	And then another slightly smaller quiescent period.
	And then an onrush of the growth of the holes in a very large Swiss cheese fashion until it becomes just a big giant data gap for us.
	And what we ran into was indeed manifest.
	We had the Arab Spring.
	We've had since then we've had other issues with the Internet.
	And now we find ourselves in a situation where our spiders, our collecting software, are running into the background warfare that's going on in the Internet.
	And this is causing the spiders all kinds of fits, and they're just simply not able to work.
	And it's created this Swiss cheese holes effect.
	And we're spending a lot of time trying to recover data from the spiders or through the spiders or re load things and are simply not able to function.
	And it has grown very rapidly over these last 45 or 50 days.
	As was forecast.
	Now, initially, when the data holes were forecast way back when, in 2003 and 2004, I used to fight with a fellow by the name of George Ur because he was quite convinced that it would be the physical destruction of the internet.
	I thought it would be something weird and quite strange, you know, space aliens playing tunes across our internet and we would all be entranced or something, who knew?
	Never ever had I figured it would just be something as mundane as corporations and governments attacking each other across the platform of the internet and thus causing problems with the very rapidly cycling data acquisition spiders.
	So plus all the DDoS attacks on our own routers have just caused us fits as well.
	And so that's kind of where we were.
	We had a situation where as a part of the context of the background of the global coastal event, there was this data gap.
	And the data gap has indeed formed.
	Now, I had no indication if there was a time lag between the full formation of the data gap and the global coastal event.
	It seemed to occur almost simultaneously from our viewpoint in 2003, but of course it would, because basically the data was coming back and saying, you'll go blind.
	Oh, and you'll get hit by this global coastal event.
	They may or may not be happening at the same time.
	But from your perspective, you can't tell now what's going to go on.
	It'll look like it's happening from the same perspective, or the same time period.
	And our perspective in 2003, all the way through to this particular point, has indeed held true that if what we'd called the global coastal event series of things was going to occur, it would occur after the data holes had manifest and they have manifested.
	And that's kind of where I was.
	Like I said, I was, you know, old, bald, and miserable, but happily collecting my data up through 2007 and into 2008.
	And then we got more confirmation that the data sets were correct as we started getting into the real degradation of the economic structure, which again was forecast within that data set.
	And just kept bubbling right along until in 2010 I encountered the farsight.org quote climate study.
	So in 2010 we encounter the farsight.org climate study and their descriptor sets within the way in which remote viewing works were rather disturbing.
	And the element that was disturbing was that they had in the little pictures, you have to go to farsight.org, you choose the 2012 tab, and you go and you look at their quote climate study, and you'll see that it's done in this RV fashion, remote viewing fashion, in which there's all these little squares of pictures and word collections.
	The word collections are quite similar to some of the stuff we do, in that it presents the words in a similar fashion.
	And a lot of the words that they're using are at the high end of the emotional numeric values that we assigned for duration, intensity, impact, carry values, etc.
	And so I was able to interpret the farsight.org study in a way that perhaps others had not.
	Leaving aside the drawings and just concentrating on the text, I found it to be somewhat disturbing because much of the text in there replicated what we had had for our global coastal event.
	Now, the really cool part about the farsight.org study was that we have a definitive date, June 1, 2013.
	The way in which the study was designed, let me state, I've talked about this in a previous Wujo, probably a couple of them.
	I do not think that that study confirms the goals that they think it does.
	I don't believe in multiple timelines.
	I believe that that's a misinterpretation.
	I believe that Universe provided us with a set of surprising clues in that study, and that we need to look at those in and of themselves, absent the framework that the designers put around the study.
	Now, it was brilliantly designed, and it took the humans totally out of the loop in terms of the connection of the remote viewer to the actual targets, etc.
	And in so doing, it was running in what I call serendipitous mode, where universe was able to intrude and bring us some information.
	And this is why I think it's valuable, is because it was run in a serendipitous mode, not deterministic, not trying to discover something specifically about the time.
	But rather examining these places relative to June 1, 2013.
	Now, this is rather key because here we had a juxtaposition of the same data sets that we had, same linguistic sets being expressed in this farsight.org study, only the farsight.org study brought in something that we did not, which was this definitive will have happened by date of June 1, 2013.
	And so I was able to then plot, this was a couple of years back, start plotting the farsight.org study material against ours, and sure enough, it looked like 2013 was a good fit.
	And we had always had 2013 as being filled with some of these other elements, but as I say, we had no real clue if there was a gap, distance between the data gap appearing, distance in time between the appearance of the data gap and the actual appearance of these other things that we'd called the global coastal event, or I had called the global coastal event.
	Could have been a year, could have been two days or five minutes or 20 years.
	There was just no way of telling from our data sets.
	The farsight.org study provided us with something that we had not had, which was this definitive date.
	Now, if you go and look at the farsight.org study, you can draw your own conclusions from their results.
	I've drawn a number of them.
	I've discussed it.
	There's a whole lot of people at various different remote viewing forums that are discussing and have discussed the Farsight 2012 study.
	So we needn't spend any time on that here.
	It does replicate and show damage to Africa, Australia, Hawaii, and parts of continental United States as a result of what I had termed the global coastal event.
	It brings in some elements that I had not had and leaves out vast quantities that I do have because it's divergent.
	It's looking at things from a different viewpoint.
	And so, but anyway, so here we had this June 1 date.
	Now, last year, when the study was unveiled and everything, and we had the June 1, excuse me, 2012, when we had the June 1, 2013 date definitively, at that point, I was presented with a opportunity to engage with remote viewers, some of whom had indeed participated in the 2012 study with farsight.org.
	And I took advantage of that and I designed with them very rapidly this thing that I called a validation study.
	I wanted to validate the linguistic sets that I had for my global coastal event and the linguistic sets and drawings that had shown up in thefarsight.org.
	And so here's something that's really key.
	I did not run this deterministically.
	I did not state in our validation study to the controller here, show me the impact of the global coastal event on my local area.
	I did not say define for me the global coastal event in any way, shape, or form.
	I used a context matrix that is linguistically similar to what I'm going to tell you now.
	It's so linguistically similar because I went through and took the trouble to match the tone all the way through.
	I don't want to reveal too much about the validation study because it brings in elements that are purely personal.
	But I'll tell you that basically what I did was, in my validation study with the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild, which were the people that were involved in the farsight.org study, I asked for the answer to the following question.
	Now, this is a paraphrase.
	This is a different question, but it has the same emotional tonality as to the one I asked.
	So it's fundamentally the same.
	What I did was I asked, will I have dirty laundry to do in my house on May 26th?
	And let it go at that.
	The reason that I did so was to see if universe, serendipitously, would provide me with any information.
	If it came back and said, yeah, you've got to have a bunch of dirty laundry to do and no big deal.
	Well, hey, then we knew that, then we could say that, well, the farsight.org study may have a lot of stuff going on in it, but it's not our global coastal event.
	Because within our global coastal event, there were some very specific indicators for activities here in the Pacific Northwest, which should be picked up, and some of those linguistics should show up if the validation study was looking at the same period of time and assuming that the remote viewers were good and so on.
	Now, I have to state, the remote viewers scare the crap out of me.
	These people are extremely good.
	They can, you know, remote view and count the hairs on a gnat's ass from 5,000 miles away while the gnat's sleeping.
	So, you know, it's staggering.
	I had no idea of the technology and the capability of it.
	It's truly engaging.
	So that aside, I can say that the remote viewers do know what they're doing.
	Now, so this validation study that I did was about my dirty laundry on May 26th.
	Sad to say, it brought back all kinds of information saying you won't be doing dirty laundry on May 26th because there won't be electricity.
	There's going to be a big bloody earthquake in your area.
	People will be isolated and this kind of thing, and there'll be all kinds of disruptions in your life personally.
	And the disruptions, as they're described, include a lot of the same top-level descriptors as we had in our original 2003 data set for what would happen in my local area, which is in the Pacific Northwest of North America.
	So there we go.
	So my validation study with the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild was based around the idea of my dirty laundry.
	And serendipitously, Universe said, don't worry about the laundry.
	You know, you're going to get hit with this giant earthquake and there's going to be all kinds of other problems and you just won't care about the dirty laundry for some time.
	Nor will you have any electricity or running water to deal with it, which pretty much validates the global coastal event.
	Now, it did so with some other details, and we learned a great deal.
	Now, I also did a validation study with a group of people from Europe.
	And that validation study was designed differently.
	I had more time.
	I constructed a little bit more elaborate matrix.
	It brought back a little bit more information.
	But I have to say that I think that the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild has a superior protocol and superior remote viewers and superior accuracy demonstrated so far.
	Now, the European or Belgian study, as I call it, is not worthless.
	It has some good information.
	It is just not as accurate or detailed due to the protocol being used.
	And so it just is not quite as meaningful as some of the things that came back from the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild.
	Another element is the gender issue.
	All of the participants in the Belgian study are male.
	We have female participants in the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild.
	The gender makes a big difference because the minds work differently, and women bring back different information than men that I find to be very much more meaningful given the circumstances.
	The information that men bring back is useful and interesting and descriptive, but it actually is not as contextually meaningful as what was provided by the female remote viewers.
	Simply, and I think this, I know this is gender-based, but I think it has to do with the issue of women being able to key in on relationships in a far more subtle and nuanced way.
	And they may indeed even be able to bring in information about relationships at levels that men are totally incapable of even sensing.
	And so the texture of the information that they brought back was a lot richer in terms of some of the nuances about the context in which I would be living.
	And those context nuances are appearing.
	They are manifesting.
	So I know that the remote viewers, both Hawaii and Belgium, were prescient in the sense that a year ago they saw things occurring, and these things are occurring as we speak.
	We're going through some of the things being manifested.
	I was really stupid.
	If you ever get a chance to do this, don't use your own life as an anchor.
	It really screws your mind over because you know too much and you try and monkey about with time and you waste a lot of energy.
	So just a bit of advice.
	Now, let's get on with the global coastal event stuff.
	So let me do a quick rundown.
	We had data, data had no date associated with it.
	In 2012, we got a date, which was the earlier than 2012, we had a date which came in through the farsight.org validation study or climate study, they called it.
	The validation studies that I had also used a definitive date slightly ahead of the farsight.org study.
	And my validation studies were done in serendipitous mode, just allowing the universe to provide whatever it wanted basically off of an innocuous question.
	It provided information that said, you're screwed.
	A global coastal event coming on in.
	Get ready.
	It didn't say the get ready part.
	That's my paranoia speaking.
	Anyway, though, so the validation studies, in my conclusion, in my estimation, were extremely worthwhile doing.
	And we must, all of us, give great thanks to the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild, which I won't get into anybody's name other than Dick Algaier.
	He's my contact there, and they've done just a huge amount of work in validating this, which allowed me to get really fierce about it and keep hammering on people.
	And maybe indeed lives have been altered and saved as a result of the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild's work.
	I think so.
	I know they've altered my life and I've done things to alter those of others.
	So thank them very much.
	If you ever get a chance to shake their hands, you guys go and do so.
	Anyway, so we now have a definitive date, June 1.
	It will have occurred by then.
	But get this, guys.
	My global coastal event was the initiation, insofar as certain events were concerned relative to the mainstream media, but it's the initiation of a series of events, a period of time.
	It is not a single event.
	So we need to discuss what it is and what it is not in terms of the global coastal event.
	What it is, as I say, is a series of events, a group of Earth changes that I just lumped together into a single narrative that is initiated by what I call the global coastal event.
	In our descriptor set, we did not have the same kind of location descriptors that were within the farsight.org.
	So I saw it much more vague because I didn't know that it would necessarily start in a particular area, although we did indeed key in on the same South Pacific region as the point in which it would start.
	They were much more specific, being able to nail the time and the date and so on, as well as also direction of some of the action.
	So insofar as some of the various places, if you go and look at the farsight.org study, you'll see that you can ascertain what direction the waves come from in various different places.
	And so that gives you some idea as to where the point of origination is, insofar as those specific points, Fort Mombasa, Sydney, etc.
	And so what our global coastal event was, was a multiple-year series of events that I actually thought began with energies from space.
	And later on, as we went through this process, my knowledge and thinking on this matured.
	And I came to the conclusion that this is a result of an expansion event, that the Earth is actually expanding outward, growing larger.
	And there's all these cracks and sinkholes and so forth that are going to form.
	And then one day there's going to be a big crack in the Pacific Plate, which was going to cause all of our, what I had called our global coastal event.
	The global coastal event can be described as a whole series of earthquakes that occur relatively close to each other at a very large level.
	Now, those indeed are planet-wide and close to each other, simultaneous in many cases.
	And the earthquakes cause all kinds of damage.
	They are their own set of problems.
	They continue for a number of years as they wind down in smaller and smaller and smaller levels of aftershocks, and everything sort of settles out.
	That number of years might be 25 or 30 or 40 before you could get to a point where you could consider it to be over in terms of this earthquake initiator.
	During the period of time of the earthquakes, the crack, we also get giant waves, displacement waves, not on the order of 5 and 6 and 800 feet high.
	Such things are not possible under our gravity unless very specific things occur.
	And we don't have the conditions for those very specific things.
	Rather, what we were seeing was a series of waves that in some cases would resemble tsunamis in that water would leave coastlines.
	In some of those, the sets said that the coastline rises up, and so the water is further away, and this is a permanent condition.
	And so what may be a waterfront and a port right now might rise up dozens of feet or higher and be landlocked here in the future.
	Other ports were described as having the water retreat from them, essentially making them useless.
	There again, there's no indication as to is this for five minutes?
	Is it for five days?
	We just don't know.
	But in some of these ports, the water would eventually slosh back.
	We also had data sets, as I've said, where we would get water such that fishes would be swimming over the steps of the capital.
	And I'm sure hoping it's not the capital, Washington State, because that's a couple hundred feet.
	So it's just a very interesting data set.
	The global coastal event had indicators of volcanoes going off that shut down air traffic.
	There was so much crud in the air.
	The descriptor set had water being put up into the air in huge amounts that we called atmospheric rivers.
	We had water going up into the air such that it would collect over regions where these atmospheric rivers would sort of stall out, creating an atmospheric lake, and it would just dump water inland in vast quantities in a very short period of time.
	We had indicators of damage to infrastructure in the sense that the earthquakes cause bridges to go, roads to crack, electrical lines to fall, dams to break, all different kinds of stuff such that electricity and electronics are basically gone in wide regions for a long period of time, as are other basic infrastructure services.
	Water mains rupture, sewage treatment plants break open, gas lines are shut down, and so on and so on and so on.
	All of these sorts of reasonably predictable effects from something like the crack of a large plate, which was, in this case, the crack of the Pacific Plate.
	This was to be effective of the Pacific Rim area first, but gradually work its way around the whole planet.
	Absent the issue of the earthquakes.
	Those were pretty much simultaneous.
	So the big earthquake in which the plate ruptures also causes earthquakes on the other side of the planet, and then it starts bouncing around and so on.
	So we all get lots of earthquakes as a part and parcel of the global coastal event.
	Our descriptor sets for the global coastal event included really a plethora of problems and also pointed to some of the human responses, what we had called SOCs or self-organizing collectives would form as people attempted to cope with all of this.
	We in our data sets had a curious absence of government.
	There was no indication in our data sets in North America, for instance, that FEMA or government or military rescue of people was in any way involved at all from the point of the global coastal event onward.
	We'd had a number of data sets that referenced government prior to the onset of the global coastal event.
	And so it was our supposition the government was basically non-functioning after that.
	And another thing we had as part of the global coastal event, and one of those data sets was descriptors of during the events period itself, not necessarily in North America, but in battlefields, soldiers would basically see what was going on, observe strange effects in the sky, have gone through a giant series of earthquakes and so on, and would lay all their weapons down and just go home, saying, you know, something big is going on, enough of these petty human concerns.
	So it was going to be a rather interesting time relative to how the species would cope with the events and come out of it on the other side.
	Now, some of the within our data sets of the what we term the global coastal event, some of the trigger linguistics, some of the linguistic sets around the soldiers basically throwing down their weapons and saying, screw this, I'm going home, included a number of described visual effects that would be in the sky.
	And so, over time, with the building of various different elements within the set, I came to understand that there was going to be an atmospheric component to this other than mere smoke from volcanoes or rain from whatever source.
	So, my original supposition for the rain, by the way, was that the plate would crack, magma would be exposed, and a giant steam engine, if you will, would be created as the new lands are upthrust.
	Now, the steam would come up in a giant steam geyser, it would evaporate huge, vast quantities of ocean water, putting it into the atmosphere and causing these atmospheric rivers and lakes.
	The effect of the water coming down would be felt within hours, but also over the course of months.
	The steam geyser effect from the rising lands as a separate issue was also in our data, not the geyser per se, but elements of that because we had bespoke sets that were for rising land at specific areas that seemed to indicate there was going to be some rising land in the Indian Ocean,
	and there would be other rising land areas between Australia and South America, and that these would be ultimately become new continents as part of our data sets.
	Now, these were from the data that originally started growing in 2003, and in fact, in 2003, we had a set that spoke about rising lands.
	And this was even before I had named the totality, the global coastal event.
	We had elements of rising lands, and they are within some of our very early work and continued for a number of years, even coming to the point of focusing specifically on 90 East latitude.
	And so, that makes sense within the broader context.
	Now, the solar component is there within our data sets because of this thing called the Sun disease.
	I really hate to go through what's basically 15 years of reported and available work, but we have a number of elements for the Sun disease as a form of a dual set.
	The set had dual applications.
	Not only was the Sun going to be in a diseased state from our viewpoint, but the activity of the Sun would cause a Sun disease, a sololuneus, here within humans and other species.
	In other words, the Sun disease would be catching here on Earth, and we would all suffer from a Sun disease at a local level, as well as from this larger solar system-wide level of the Sun disease as the Sun changed.
	And you can go back and read a lot of our old work and separate this stuff up.
	And so, we see it all comes together within the various different elements.
	Now, 20-plus years into the process, we have a nice picture that shows us all getting ready to ride the planet as it goes through a series of changes.
	That again, that my narrative had called the global coastal event.
	You can name it whatever you want in your own narrative because it will affect you differently.
	And my viewpoint was from within the data sets of a planet-wide viewpoint.
	Now, so we know from our data sets, or we get a description of what the global coastal event is from our data sets.
	Then we can now fold in some of the information from thefarsight.org, and you can look and see how your area might be affected relative to their descriptions of what's going to occur by June 1.
	And then I have some further descriptions that have come to us through the validation studies of our particular area.
	So for instance, here in the Pacific Northwest, I know that our immediate problem is going to be a very large earthquake, and that there will be a lag, some temporal distance between the appearance of this earthquake and the damage it causes, and the appearance later on of water problems within Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and the new structure of what will be created at that point.
	It will be enlarged in some way.
	I actually think that maybe Hood Canal is going to end up overtopping and connecting into the southern end of Puget Sound through subsidence, not through water rise.
	I think earthquakes may cause things to shift to the point where the Big Bend actually connects into Pickering or Hammersley, one of those inlets there.
	I can't remember which one it would be.
	It's been a while since I've been up in that area.
	And so we're looking at water alterations of our local environment.
	The distance between the earthquake appearance, which is before May 26th, and due to the validation study, and the water intrusion is not known.
	At some point, the remote viewers do not have, they're like our work, they don't have a calendar or a watch when they're doing this, and they absent any kind of a temporal peg in the study itself, as was done by Courtney Brown by stating that June 1, 2013 would be the end date.
	And as I did by stating that my end date would be May 26th, the absent those, the remote viewers, don't have a time clue.
	So they could clue in, for instance, on May 26th and back out, so to speak, to get a larger view.
	But in doing so, they would present maybe all kinds of accurate information, but they wouldn't say, oh, well, I'm out a week, I'm a week ahead of that, or I'm a week behind that.
	They just know there is some distance ahead of it or some distance behind it in that kind of a thing, in the same way we do.
	They're not temporal clues on a tick-by-tick basis for clocks because clocks are and calendars to a huge extent are an abstraction upon an artificiality.
	And so to get at the reality of time, it does not really work that way, so to speak.
	So what do we know?
	Well, we know that from the RV studies that the major impact here in the Pacific Northwest, and this goes from, say, mid-Oregon, maybe even into Upper California, all the way up into southern Alaska, is going to be a very large earthquake.
	And even further into Alaska and the Bering Sea is going to be impacted by the tsunami that results from this earthquake.
	We're going to get a tsunami here.
	I think other areas of the planet are going to get displacement waves.
	There's a difference.
	A displacement wave can rise up very much higher than a tsunami.
	A tsunami is a straight-line force that travels through the water that impels the water to try and climb up the shore.
	If the saving grace for us here in Puget Sound is that it's a twisty bugger, that this bastard and even Hood Canal has got so many hooks and twists in it.
	And every time you have a hook and a twist, a tsunami loses energy because it's a straight-line force that wants to travel through water.
	It can't compel the water really to make a hard right angle.
	It loses so much force in doing so that it dissipates very rapidly.
	That's a tsunami.
	This is something that everybody really ought to look up and go and read about, the difference between tsunami and displacement waves, because you may be in the issue of facing one or the other if you're on a coastline.
	Tsunamis usually cannot, I mean, it's almost impossible for a tsunami on any of our coastlines around here to have the water climb up the coast in a wave that's taller than 120 feet.
	So you're looking at something that's about 40 meters maximum height.
	The reason that this is, is entirely due to the coastline.
	And again, this straight line force that dissipates when it runs into non-water material.
	It travels very well through water.
	A tsunami is not individual water atoms moving very rapidly.
	It is a force that moves through water at tremendous speeds, near supersonic, in the sense that you can get five and six and 700 mile per hour movements out of the force through the water.
	But then when it encounters the shoreline, the water is forced up that shoreline by this energy, and it rapidly loses its energy as it tries to move this heavy mass against gravity.
	And so a tsunami will never get much, usually much higher than 30 or 40 feet.
	Some coastlines would accommodate 80 feet.
	The very rare coastline would give you 120 feet.
	Also, coastlines have a tendency to degrade tsunamis very rapidly.
	They don't run inland hundreds of miles, as a rule.
	Now, excuse me, there.
	If you'll note in the farsight.org study, the African site of Fort Jesus Mombasa, they have a wave that runs in some 72 miles.
	I think it's 72 miles, I suppose, 72 kilometers, but in either case, a huge distance, crossed over to the base of a mountain.
	This is due to it being a long expanse of a flat coastal plain that's slightly in the middle of the coastal plain is slightly lower in elevation than the surrounding coastline.
	So it has a natural downward dip, and that's what causes this large acceleration to go that far, in my opinion.
	There's also indications that, but now let me state that I think that this is not a tsunami per se.
	I think there's some element of a displacement wave that hits both Sydney and Fort Mimbasa.
	I don't know that that's the case with Hawaii.
	From the descriptions that I've seen in the farsight.org study and in studying the coastline of Hawaii, I think that's actually a tsunami and may result from the same earthquake origination that or another earthquake because there's going to be lots of them that strike the Pacific Northwest up here in the Puget Sound because also because of the direction from which it hits Hawaii.
	In looking at the farsight.org work and comparing the coastline, and by the way, I've taken an I'm self-educated in oceanography and physical oceanography and hydrology and hydronics and all of this kind of stuff.
	So, you know, I have some acumen with this work.
	I've been building boats for years and I've been on the water for years and years and years and lived on coastlines all over and seen some weird stuff.
	And this accumulated experience has allowed me to do some level of analysis.
	Doesn't mean it's definitive.
	I'm just out here trying to figure all this stuff out myself.
	If you're an oceanographer and you have physical oceanography skills and you know about coastlines and wave development and so on, then please by all means get out and analyze the potential here and give us your best guess as to where and when or where and to what extent the issues might be given these circumstances.
	But if you go to the farsight.org study and you look at the sites for Washington DC and for Florida you see that it is not a situation of their being struck by a displacement wave that originates in the Pacific.
	They may indeed be struck by a displacement wave.
	There's a lot of indications that that is the case.
	Although in Florida, you couldn't tell really a tsunami would just overtop Florida because it's so low very easily would cause huge levels of damage just at the same level as a displacement wave.
	That's not necessarily true in Washington, D.C. The level of damage there does look as though a big bass of water has been moved inland, which would say displacement wave and not a tsunami.
	Given the characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay and how it's been built up and the land has been terraformed, I don't think you'd have a big run-up in a tsunami.
	It would probably die out within 10 or 15 miles maximum of the actual mean high tide waterline.
	However, a displacement wave in that area could carry a great distance because, again, it's also a lot of low-lying coastal plains.
	In any event, in both cases, Florida and Washington, D.C. and thefarsight.org, there's significant water damage.
	This appears to be their first real significant damage in the sense that up here we get an earthquake.
	We know this from our own data, where we had the descriptor for the earthquake that was going to hit the Pacific Northwest as being isolating to the point that it took down power from our region out.
	So it destroys the big power lines that go down the west coast from the dams up here.
	It also destroys bridges for 1,000 miles around was the actual textural description.
	In Washington, D.C., the other Washington, the destruction there appears to come from water, given the farsight.org study.
	Our data up here was validated by the validation study showing the earthquake first and then part of the validation study showed water intrusion later on.
	The Belgian input to that study was focused more on the water and some of the other issues that were involved there.
	But there is a clear temporal gap between the earthquakes, the tsunami that hits us, and then the tsunami is a local event.
	It's short-lived.
	It's related to the earthquake up here.
	But then we also have some level of water intrusion that occurs on a long-term permanent basis as a result of the larger global coastal event.
	So, this is a quite complex situation.
	Now, our validation studies have been followed by validation studies done for other regions.
	Some of the details I am aware of some of these studies.
	The details for a study in the Ontario region included the precursor to the global coastal event of a large-scale amount of flooding, and that that flooding would continue and get worse as a result of an inland lake dumping on them.
	This is pretty much true of the situation in Arkansas.
	There was a validation study there that described lots and lots of water and inundation there as a result of the global coastal event.
	However, in the one in Arkansas, by June 1, they're drying out.
	So, the rain had stopped, and the event, insofar as they were concerned from that viewpoint, had ceased.
	Let me make a note here.
	Probably should have presented the information better, but from my viewpoint, our descriptor set of what I'd called the global coastal event was, as I say, a long-term process.
	And I would say that by 2041, you'll probably be able to say that, oh, okay, now we're into whatever is the new normal.
	It'll all have been settled out by then.
	So it takes that long to settle down.
	The validation studies that I've seen or that I've become aware of for the various different parts of the planet are usually temporarily specifically focused.
	So the validation studies I've seen were basically people saying, What the hell is going to happen to me by June 1?
	and getting a view of their local environment.
	And a bunch of those collected gives us a larger view of what's going on.
	However, we don't really have any studies that show the longer-term progression and some of the issues that would develop over time.
	Now, as you may imagine, some things are quite horrific in this whole scenario.
	If there is a global coastal event, although it's not mentioned in the farsight.org and it's not mentioned in the validation studies we've done, there was a lot of stuff in our data about nuclear plants causing all kinds of problems around the planet.
	And we ended up with a bespoke number, very similar to the Banda Achie situation.
	And in the Banda Achi situation, we had the number 300,000 written out in textual form showing up ahead of time as a precursor.
	And it was 300,000 would be killed.
	The number was close enough to that, and it was also quoted at that within mainstream media.
	So we took that as being an accurate forecast.
	Now, in our current data set, we have the number 1.289 billion people dying.
	1.289 billion.
	Ba-ba-B with a billion.
	This is a staggering thing.
	It makes sense under a lot of different circumstances, but especially if you factor in the nuclear plants and the heavy population in the northern hemisphere, because nuclear plants all over will be damaged.
	Some of our data sets from 2003, for instance, showed waves, which we couldn't anticipate, or we didn't at the time.
	And I actually think it was data that came up in 2004, not 2003, because that set grew over a number of years.
	But there were data sets that described waves on the coast of California that would lift up, literally actually lift up nuclear plants off the coast, shake them into their various constituents, and scatter them along a 20 or 30 mile range of the coast of California,
	washing up quite literally plutonium rods and that kind of thing on the beaches where people were now caborting and having picnics and that kind of thing.
	We saw that there would be the way in which the data sets were laid out was that these current playgrounds would become plutonium hellholes.
	And so this was a result of these waves that would occur.
	So some of our descriptor sets included a lot of the nuclear damage.
	We don't see that in either the validation studies or the farsight.org, but bear in mind they're focused with a narrow focus, time-specific, and so on.
	Which brings us up to the other thing, the issue of evidence of absence.
	So because of the North American specific nature of some of the information here, I'm specifically focused on the government of the United States, the federal government of the United States at this moment.
	When I go into the following description here, In our data sets from 2003, as well as the farsight.org descriptions of this particular year by June 1, 2013, as well as the validation studies that I've seen and been involved with.
	In none of those do we show government response to this global coastal event intermixed with the populace.
	This is evidence of absence, but it's not evidence of destruction of government.
	We know, for instance, that they're slow, and in the case of the farsight.org study, it does not extend out beyond June 1.
	The events have happened by June 1, such that in this farsight.org study, the events have happened such that by June 1, people are trying to pull themselves together.
	So it's not a day before, it's not two days before, I would imagine it's a number of days before, just because I've been through natural disasters and there's this shell shock period.
	And these people are definitely within that shell shock period, as described by the farsight.org study, but conditions have started to change at a material level.
	And two of the validation studies we've become aware of, that's also the case.
	By June 1, they also set pegs at June 1.
	And by June 1, the rains had decreased in Arkansas and the flooding was starting to dissipate in Ontario.
	And in fact, in Ontario, there was a sudden burst into a very hot summer.
	And we know that there's an absence of chemtrails.
	The same can be said here in the Pacific Northwest.
	Our validation studies of both kinds show that the earthquake strikes us.
	We have a great number of issues.
	There are volcanic ash issues here, but not from Rainier.
	So we don't have any indication that Mount Rainier blows, but that there is ash that is coming to us from the east.
	So it could be Kamchutka or other areas to the far east of us that are causing this.
	But we also know that that dissipates and that there are no chemtrails here as well.
	And that the environment is a sudden burst into an extremely hot summer period of time.
	Now, this causes us a great deal of problems here in North America, which we need to note that after the onset of these global coastal event issues, they're in our data sets.
	So it doesn't exist in the remote viewing that I'm aware of.
	But in our data sets, we get into a period, and I shouldn't diverge here because it's a whole nother subject, but we get into a period where a great deal of the forests in Canada and across northern United States burn.
	We have a huge, horrific forest fire that lasts for a couple of years, and there's all kinds of problems from that.
	But that doesn't appear to, in our data sets, it didn't appear until a number of years after the global coastal event.
	So that might be two years out.
	We had some indication that it was at least one year, but time being what it is within our data sets, I'm not even really sanguine that it's a full year.
	So I won't impact us initially.
	So we have the issues of the displacement waves.
	We have the issues of the tsunamis.
	You have to decide what your local coastline would support, whether you're at risk for displacement waves.
	The displacement waves are in the southern hemisphere, we think.
	I think the displacement waves come from an expansion event in which the Pacific plate cracks and causes other plate shifts and cracks around the planet, which cause other displacement waves and tsunamis of a smaller proportion.
	So for instance, a plate crack in the Pacific might well initiate the La Palma El Hiro destruction that causes a displacement wave to hit the east coast.
	Also bear in mind that the Florida to Washington, D.C., those two sites have to be viewed as a range, not individual locations, when you're looking at the farsight.org information, because whatever is happening to Florida that is also simultaneously happening to Washington, D.C. is going to happen to that entire coastline in between and likely extends even further north.
	There is a lack of information from both our viewpoints from the remote viewing studies as well as from our data of what happens north of Washington, D.C., all the way up to Nova Scotia.
	I don't know why there's this lack of geographic references within our data set from that 2003 period.
	It could have been an artifact of our software programming, so I don't take it too seriously.
	But there just was Not quite as many geographic references there as there were in other areas.
	Now, the global coastal event from our narrative is not the end of humanity.
	True, lots of humans live around the coast, and our data shows that 1.289 billion people are going to die as a result of this, but that's not the end of the species as a whole.
	It is the initiation of a period of time in which it is quite clear that we're living on a whole new world.
	It's not your father's world anymore.
	And you're going to have to learn new skills and adapt to a changing environment for decades that will then settle out, and your children's children will finally learn a set of skills that will allow them to live in whatever that world ends up as.
	We are truly in a transition period here.
	This is assuming all this shit happens.
	You know, we don't know that it will.
	We do know that Dick Algaier is really one hell of a good remote viewer and had nailed in his drawings both the meteorites coming into Russia this year as well as the recent street theater in Boston with their explosions and stuff.
	And so he's very good at it.
	We also know that our data sets, when they're accurate, are surprisingly, staggeringly, scarily so.
	We're wrong frequently, there's no question about that, but we're right more times than we are wrong to some statistical degree that it makes it worthwhile for people to keep reading our crap.
	And for me to keep altering my life based on what I see within the data sets.
	So far, it has not let me down.
	So there are some indicators that our forecasts are accurate, or could be, as well as the forecast from the remote viewers.
	There are also a number of remote viewers out there working their butts off, and you can find them on various different remote viewing forums, for a, which is really the plural of that, including those over at Ed Dames.
	Now, I've been contacted by some of these guys, and they have their own set of concerns that also materialize around Memorial Day, which is the end of May, here in these United States, and their concerns have to do with meteorites and so on.
	I've also received weird-ass phone calls from people claiming to be connected to government United States at various different levels, including what I term the breakaway civilization.
	And these guys are also expressing all kinds of fear language about this period of time relative to Earth changes and what I described in our narrative as the global coastal event.
	Your narrative is going to be different of it, believe me.
	If it exists, it will be entirely different.
	So, those are our timing clues.
	Now, we're living in a lot of those timing clues.
	They're manifesting now.
	Some of the stuff we'd forecast is actually coming and manifesting.
	It's like, well, damn, I really wish it wouldn't.
	You know, if it were up to me, I'd call it off.
	If I could just say, okay, global coastal event is off.
	You know, everybody laugh at Cliff for a couple of years and he'll go off and tinker with his boat.
	That'd be great.
	That'd be just tremendous.
	I'd love to retire and have such a life and have the planet hold up and, you know, even in this screwy condition, not do a whole lot of change.
	It's not up to me.
	And, you know, people say, well, is the global coastal event still on?
	I get all these weird emails.
	And think about it, guys.
	It's not up to me.
	The data sets in no way have altered.
	The data sets are from 2003 that really describe this.
	2003, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is when we really got the description of the global coastal event.
	Those data sets have been growing, but anything that's likely to come in now won't alter the mass of that data set in any significant way, especially since we're now trapped in what is known as immediacy language.
	Let me divert and give you a little metaphor of what it's like to be an immediacy language.
	From our viewpoint, we are, let's say we're floating on a boat on a river of time, and we're looking into the river.
	Immediacy language is the crud that floats by our boat that's going at either the same speed we are or slightly faster, and so it catches up with us, or it's floating next to us, or it's slower and we catch up with it.
	But it's the stuff that's right next to our boat that we happen to run into, this shallow, broad area.
	In the river we're on, we can't even see the shores here.
	All we can see is the water that we're on in our little boat and the crap that happens to float up along the side, the dutris, the flotsam, and the jetsum.
	Maybe somebody's thrown some stuff over.
	And we get a lot of that memorically.
	And so that's what immediacy data is like.
	Short-term data would be like being able to drop a hook or a net into the water and collect the information about the currents that are supporting the surface activity.
	And so we would know why there's an upwelling at this point.
	We'd be able to see it occurring ahead of the upwelling actually occurring.
	That's shorter-term data.
	Longer-term data would be like using one of those bottom scanning radar to be able to see what the topography is of the underlying river that we're on and why it's influencing the currents that are then in turn influencing the eddies around our boat.
	And so we don't have the ability to put a net in anymore, and we don't have operating topography scattering radar.
	All we've got, because of the nature of the language changing, which we can go into some other time, on the internet, is this short-term stuff, or excuse me, the immediacy data stuff.
	And the immediacy data stuff is so immediately focused and so shallow that we don't get a lot of context with it.
	And so any data sets that are likely to occur now are not going to be significant relative to our global coastal event.
	So it's not like I'm standing or changing or altering or supporting this.
	I'm just saying that back in 2003, we got this data.
	It grew from 2003 to about 2007, actually into early 2008.
	And then we got into all this financial crap.
	Anyway, and that data set pretty much is manifesting.
	A lot of the stuff that's in it is still showing up.
	We have a lot of stuff yet to manifest.
	And if it does manifest, we're going to end up in this global coastal event, which now we know is also sort of supported in an oblique way by the farsight.org stuff and very explicitly supported by the validation studies that I've done.
	And other people's remote viewing also seems to support a series of catastrophic events in this month of May, or at least in their view, by summer.
	Now, it's true, I think Ed Dames thinks it's all going to happen by summer of 2014, and that we're off a year, so to speak.
	We'll find out.
	From my viewpoint, I think the earthquake's going to happen here on or around May 20th.
	Maybe May 21, 22, 23.
	I don't know.
	Maybe our data, by the way, is always off by about three days if it's going to be off.
	If it's going to be accurate but off in the immediacy level, it'll be within a three-day range because of the range in which the emotional quantifiers were attached to those words that are in the immediacy data way back when.
	And so, you know, we might as early as May 17th, but for a lot of reasons, I just thought May 20th.
	And that's just been the date I've been pegging to.
	I don't know for sure it's going to happen then.
	I'm not a seer.
	You know, God hasn't hit me with a lightning bolt and told me all this stuff.
	It's just that the data sets and all of the analysis I've done seem to suggest this.
	Now, one could ask, are there manifestations in reality that are showing up that would tend to support the idea of Cliff's narrative of the global coastal event?
	And unfortunately, that is the case.
	There are indeed manifestations.
	Some of them are these weird oscillations and strange external or extra-seasonal weather.
	They were part of the matrix in which the global coastal event was described.
	Some of them include the degradation of the economic structure, because that was described way back in 2004 and 2005 as being part of the background, if you will, in which the global coastal event narrative unfolded.
	We also have all kinds of manifestations in the Earth itself, independent of these more human abstraction-based kind of things.
	These manifestations in the Earth and the Sun are indeed showing up.
	We've got a Sun that's exhibiting, from our viewpoint, a Sun disease.
	It's not behaving in a, quote, normal fashion from a human viewpoint.
	We have weird things like mountains bulging and we have volcanoes going off in Europe.
	We now hear that Fuji Sun is bulging and may decide he's going to blow.
	We've got volcanoes in volcanic activity everywhere.
	We've got all kinds of undersea activity going on, under sea volcanoes.
	And now we have some very disturbing information out of the South East Pacific in which some of the tsunami buoys are undergoing huge levels of shifts in terms of displacement that can't be accounted for with current drift.
	So in other words, there may be a crack starting to occur down there because these buoys, which are anchored, and are transmitting telemetry all the time about their position relative to their altitude, so to speak, over the ocean floor, are saying, whoops, now I'm up, now I'm down, and so on, as though there's a heaving going on.
	And then since that was the site for our crack, this is very disturbing information.
	And we've got the sinkholes appearing everywhere.
	This is also one of the things that was forecast for a number of years.
	We've got cracks forming in the planet.
	These also go along with the idea of the expansion event.
	Let's see.
	We've got all kinds of manifestations, local and regional and planet-wide, indicating that the weather is atypical, to say the least.
	These were also part of the context in which our global coastal event would occur.
	And again, we've also got, as I say, the sun disease.
	And I think personally, you know, and I can be wrong about this, could be meteors.
	There's all the remote viewer guys, a lot of them think it's going to be meteors if you slam into the Southeast Pacific or the Pacific Ocean somewhere and initiate this series of events.
	I actually have always thought it would be an expansion event coming from the sun, and that a lot of the stuff that we would think of as meteors in terms of their impact on the sky could also be from a plasma event causing an interaction with our upper atmosphere.
	Would create a lot of the same visual kind of attractions or attractors.
	And the descriptor sets that we had were a lot more detailed and seemed to indicate a plasma event, which would go along with an expansion of the planet.
	And so, in any event, basically, here we are.
	Today is the 4th.
	My peg is some 16 days out.
	I can be off by three days either way.
	I had set a final peg of May 26th on my validation study, and I will not feel calm until June 1.
	If we get through June 1 without any of these events occurring, then it's like, okay, we were off temporally.
	Everything is off the table.
	We can start all over again and say a big and then look at what's going on and decide just how close we are, if it's temporarily off by any kind of distance, or if we sort of like had minor manifestations of it, and that's all we're going to get.
	Again, if that's the case, whew, you know, dodged a bullet, jumped the ravine, got out of the car before it crashed, any kind of narrow escape sort of thing that you want, because we are actually having physical manifestations of all of these sorts of issues.
	Now, from our viewpoint, if this occurs, we're not out of the water by June 1.
	We're not in real recovery by June 1.
	From the viewpoint of farsight.org, that's ambiguous.
	From the viewpoint of our validation studies, we get some hints because one of our validation studies looked forward from the events, not backward to what would cause it or timing, but what happens afterwards.
	In our data sets, the period of time after the initiation of the global coastal event was a period of time of transformation, as we all have to scrabble.
	And no sooner are you starting to think that you're good, you've got, you know, scrounged up a tent, you've got a little bit of food and so forth, and all of a sudden you see that the tide's coming in a whole lot faster and further than you thought, and you better grab all this stuff and run like hell.
	And it keeps coming in that day after day after day, not enough to wash over you, but enough to keep forcing you inland.
	These kind of issues, such that you're, and then, you know, you no sooner get into that than all of a sudden there's this extra seasonal storm, even though it's the middle of summer, you get hit by hail and snow and stuff, and that causes you to freak out because you've just decided that you were going to start planting lettuce.
	You know, that sort of a deal.
	So it's going to be a very unsettling period of time, even during the quote, recovery after the initiation of the event.
	And bear in mind, this is by June 1, from my viewpoint, is just the initiation of the event.
	It's not the end of anything.
	In fact, unless it's the end of the beginning, if you want to think of it that way, and the certainty that, you know, we are into Terra Nova, new world, new planet, and it's new rules.
	And you'd better sort of adapt and so on.
	Hopefully, none of this occurs.
	Hopefully, I'm just totally wrong with the data sets I've had.
	And hopefully, all the remote viewers have been tricked by a giant spacecoat fart that got involved into the Matrix and caused them all to hallucinate.
	Somehow I don't think so.
	That's the real problem.
	You know, I look out there and I see these guys with their chemtrails daily trying to alter the weather.
	I see the strange-ass Gus, you know, government U.S. running around acting like a bunch of batshit Nazis.
	I see the powers that be building huge seed vaults up in the far north and the ice country.
	You know, and then there's all the strange aspects of what's going on on the planet.
	And you got to say, hmm, I think something's up.
	Now, the thing is, we don't have to be fearful about it, right?
	If you're one of the one points, or if I am, it doesn't matter.
	If anybody here is one of the 1.289 billion people that die, well, all of us are going to die.
	So it's like, okay, you just got to check out a little bit earlier.
	That's all.
	You get to experience the next stage of the grand adventure a little bit earlier than some of the other people that are here.
	You know, it is not a reason to be fearful.
	The global coastal event, as I think of it, is going to be a challenge.
	It's going to be a pain in the ass if you're used to comfort.
	But the universe provides us with what we need, not what we desire or want.
	And it frequently gets really upset with us when we get lazy and too complacent, and it figures it's got to come along and kick our asses to improve us as a species.
	And if you all notice, there's a whole lot of couch potato humans around, and I think the universe doesn't like that.
	And unfortunately, the weight of all the couch potato humans has thrown some kind of universal trigger, in my opinion, and it, you know, it's going to come along and kick our butts, and we have to adapt and get tough.
	So, if I'm correct, we've got 16 days, there's no point in freaking out.
	From my viewpoint, I'm not going to do anything different.
	I'm not going to run around and try and buy extra rope or get another shovel or something, figuring earthquake, dig your way out, that kind of thing.
	I'm about as prepared as I can be.
	And then there's this other issue.
	You can buy all this stuff and have it all nicely sorted, labeled, all ready to go.
	And universe can come along and decide you're not going to have any of that stuff to use.
	And it's going to accommodate this by picking your ass up with a water spout or a tornado and planting you down 30 miles away with amnesia in your underwear in a mud hole among a bunch of strangers.
	And that's what it wants you to experience.
	So I'm not of the opinion that last-minute surge in purchasing or any of that kind of stuff is worthwhile.
	What I do think is worthwhile is a last-minute surge in calmness and in peace and in centering yourself and deciding, okay, you know, this is it.
	It's kind of the before you get onto the mat and you know you're going to have a contest and you have a partner on the mat.
	And in our martial art, it's a partner, the Aikido.
	One person is the person who's going to do the throw and the other person who's going to be the person that throws and learns to roll and experience and demonstrate their skills that way.
	Now, before you get on the mat, your test or everything, there's a calming period that you go through so that you're good at your art, so that you can express yourself very well with that.
	You don't want to be jittery.
	You want to leave behind all the cares of the day.
	You don't want to injure your partner.
	You want to execute your moves as well as you can under the circumstances with as much skill as you can demonstrate.
	And that's that, in my opinion, that's what we've got coming up: a chance for all of us adults to be able to act in a heroic fashion.
	And that's extremely rare.
	In our world, it is very rare for adults to get to act in a heroic fashion and to experience that whole range of emotions that come from that.
	It fades with childhood, and it's a real gift in a way that all of us will appreciate later.
	One of those things, you know, you'll thank me for this later.
	So bear that in mind.
	Usually, when people say that, you want to get them to say, hey, lean closer, lean closer, and then pow.
	Anyway, so, but we need to be calm about all this.
	We need to have a sort of a light-hearted attitude, not be bogged down in the gravitas of it all.
	The planet's changing.
	Universe is doing as it will.
	There's nothing we can do about it other than to have a good attitude and react well when it occurs.
	If it occurs, I keep saying if because I don't know.
	And if it's up to me, if the universe is listening, hey, hit the stop button.
	We're done.
	We got it.
	We don't have to do this.
	But unfortunately, none of this shit's up to me.
	So as I say, we got some 16 days we can enhance our calm, relax about it all, review our progress, sit back, examine, make notes, and consider what kind of a mindset one would like to have at this time and attempt to achieve that mindset.
	Again, I want to caution everybody about some kind of last-minute panic freakout.
	It is just not going to help.
	It's just not going to do you any good.
	Time is too short.
	In our viewpoint, the last few seconds before a challenge, you want to calm yourself and center yourself and get rid of the anxiety.
	You want to take that deep breath and expand the abdomen.
	And then you want to exhale in what's known as the cleansing breath, where you curve the tongue up against the roof of the mouth so that you get this ha sound, where it's like if you can, one thing to do would be to maybe find other people, go and do meditation and breathing exercises.
	It's really cool.
	Meditation is a technique.
	It's a tool.
	A lot of people are foolish if they learn of it and don't use it.
	It's available to all humans and provides a level of body control and emotional control that's going to be very worthwhile.
	Now, 16 days isn't a lot of time to learn to meditate, but hey, with meditation, 16 days you could accomplish miracles, and it never hurts to begin even at the last minute with that.
	It's a very unique skill.
	It's like willpower.
	You don't have any willpower whatsoever until you exercise it.
	And then from that minute on, you own it.
	You've got it forever.
	So you've always had it.
	You just didn't recognize it.
	Same thing is true in this case.
	There's a whole lot of questions to be asked about the global coastal event from our viewpoint.
	We don't have a whole lot of answers.
	We have suppositions, we have speculations, we have some forecasts that are based on our weird-ass technology.
	We don't have a whole lot of facts in that sense.
	We have manifestations we can point to.
	And if you want to draw connections between the manifestations and our forecasts to find supporting evidence, as we do, then you can end up with the same kind of conclusions.
	But that doesn't mean that I'm right here.
	You're just going to have to make up your own mind and decide how you're going to react here over these next, you know, if you figure to June 1, we have until they have the rest of the month here, approximately three weeks.
	So that's not long.
	It's like, hey, finally.
	And, you know, good, bad, or indifferent, right or wrong, by June 1, I will be in a different world.
	And I will no longer have to deal with these set of circumstances.
	Again, right or wrong, the situation will have changed as a result of having shifted past this particular temporal boundary.
	Now, right or wrong about the global coastal event, I'm quite right about the data holes.
	A lot of people are experiencing these now where you have to have you go to YouTube and it gives you an error after it starts to load.
	Or you have to load your email three or four times to get it to come down to you.
	Or issue a number of commands across the internet repeatedly to get the activity to occur.
	This is a result of all this background activity warfare going on.
	And it's driving our computer processes nuts because they operate at a much faster rate than humans do.
	And so they're bombing out through all these timeouts because our timeouts are measured in milliseconds, not actual human-level seconds.
	And so it's truly affected our ability to operate.
	So right or wrong about the global coastal event, I was quite right about the data holes and the data gap.
	And we face severe technical challenges should we all make it to June 1.
	In fact, we're trying to overcome these technical challenges with these weekly reports we're doing and running into huge amounts of work that we had not anticipated even as little as three months ago.
	So it's very distressing to find some of these level of forecasts appearing, and especially the fact that they're manifesting in a way we had not anticipated because universe loves to surprise us.
	The more we, there's a saying we've got here at Half Past Human, that every time you look at the future, it changes.
	Because you looked at it, because universe wants its surprise.
	It'll still deliver what it wants, but it just will do it in a way you had not anticipated.
	So if you can figure it out, that's not how the universe is going to lay it out for you.
	You know, it'll change some level of detail or subtlety that will provide its level of surprise.
	Just our conclusion here.
	And so the surprise for us was that the data holes and the data gap appeared as a result of complex cyber warfare.
	I had never ever anticipated any of that.
	Shows you what dummies we are.
	Anyway, though, and that's kind of where we're at.
	This has been a long wujo.
	The time is warranted because the nature of the subject is has so much weight.
	It has so much gravitas.
	It reaches into people so deeply.
	You know, they listen to me.
	They think my narrative is prophetic in some way, which it is not.
	We're just a technology company that has had some decent level of success and a track record that has reached certain conclusions.
	I hope that I'm just like some batshit evangelical Christian or new ager with a rapture date here and that kind of thing.
	And that, you know, by June 1, we'll blow all this off and everybody can have a good laugh and we can go about altering our planet and growing and maturing as a species.
	That is truly the best thing that could come from this.
	The worst thing that could happen is that we would be in any way correct.
	That would be the absolute most terrible thing that I can think of.
	And that's kind of where we're at, guys.
	It won't do any good to send me email asking me if it's on-off, if it's delayed, or what are the details.
	They're written about.
	I can't give you anything other than what the data has.
	And at this point, the immediacy data is not providing us anything that is meaningful in that sense.
	It doesn't add much to the overall narrative of what we think may or may not occur.
	Or what we think may occur.
	Whether it does or not is immaterial to our data gathering process.
	So I'm saying basically the data gathering process at this point in no way really impacts the longer narrative of our global coastal event.
	We're just sort of waiting these last few days to see what's going to happen.
	And so basically, you know, it's not up to me.
	I've already tried to call it off, guys.
	It didn't work.
	You know, universe doesn't pay a damn bit of attention to Cliff.
	But Cliff pays attention to universe.
	So there's basically the dichotomy of our situation.
	We've got a lot of absence of chemtrails up here, which is a lot of strong solar stuff.
	I'm getting weird-ass phone calls from people claiming to be part of the breakaway civilization saying, you know, basically, we're breaking away and you all are doomed, that sort of thing.
	So that's, you know, basically the end of the wujo.
	I sure hope we survive.
	I'm very optimistic.
	I've got all kinds of things I want to do.
	I've discovered a whole new methodology for creation of inventions in a non-systematic but really cool way.
	And some other stuff that would just be fascinating to get into.
	So, you know, I'm hoping that as with, let me state something too about our work, okay?
	And humans in general.
	You may notice this or not, but as a linguist, I'm very keyed in on it.
	Humans have a tendency to express negative emotions much easier than they do positive emotions because of the nature of universe and our cultural conditioning.
	I found this to be true across all cultures to some degree.
	Some cultures are less inhibited in good emotions and have differing viewpoints as a result of that.
	So for instance, linguistically, you'll find that people whose primary language is Arabic are much more prone to express positive, optimistic, and forward-looking good language than are people who have English or any of the Romance languages as their primary language.
	Although there is an exception for both Italian and to a certain degree, Spanish.
	Those are much more positive language.
	Their culture and the people report and use language that's more positive than English guys more frequently.
	But in general, even with those exceptions, language as a rule, humans have a tendency to express more negative language and to express things in a more extreme fashion towards the negative than they do towards the positive.
	And that provides the bias in our work.
	I've been really depressed over these last years and for a number of different reasons that don't relate to the work and then the work didn't help.
	But the linguistic structures themselves form as they do and are not influenced by my depression or not.
	My mental state in no way alters how the data comes in.
	Although one may argue that I'd originally written the code and therefore, but no, I didn't put any kind of an emotional bias on the intake of the data.
	And so the data shows up as it wants to.
	And we have a tendency to concentrate on negative language.
	So there is a small chance of some unknown level that our collective species-wide preponderance of negative language expression is influencing the narrative that we get from our global coastal event.
	And it won't be as bad as we think it could be or seemingly could be, or seemingly has formed in our minds.
	And I'll give you a discrete example of this.
	If one goes and looks at the farsight.org study and you look at the part that was done by Dick Algier showing the meteors and stuff, and we look at the meteors showing up in Russia, we see a lot of the same imagery, and we know the totality of the damage and the extent of that meteor damage within Russia.
	And so we can now say, aha, here is a clear indicator of the actual level of damage.
	And here is a picture from which we'd originally formed an impression.
	And we can see that our impression was probably wrong because our impression would have a tendency to concentrate on a larger negative view that really did not manifest.
	Yes, it was very negative for the people in Russia that were impacted by the meteor, but the extent and the broadness of the negativity is much less than we could have anticipated than our minds would have drawn from the picture itself.
	Long way of saying that, you know, our minds have a tendency to hype the potential for doom until it actually appears.
	And we need to be aware of this because we're actually facing a fairly large challenge, especially with such validation as Dick Alguyer's viewing of the meteorites and the details matching so accurately.
	And so in that regard, we need to look very dispassionately at the work that I've provided and that Farsight.org has provided, drill down on those actual words, and then eliminate our emotional bias as much as we can and look towards some actual manifestation in a descriptive fashion of what these words are going to show us.
	And they show that we have a whole lot of challenges coming up, but it's not the end of the world.
	It's not the end of civilization.
	Even though it all, albeit, is going to be extremely challenging with all the stupid-ass nuke plants all around the planet that are going to be imploding and all these other issues.
	You know, chemical plants and pipelines and these sort of things.
	We're going to have a big cleanup to do.
	But, hey, at least we'll all have some work.
	So, anyway, guys, that's it, you know, on the Global Coastal event.
	I don't want to be facetious about it.
	But even if every bit is, even if it appears and it's every bit as bad as our language suggests, I'm not going to take this shit seriously.
	There's no point.
	Got to look at it in as positive a light as we can.
	And, you know, hey, at least it's going to keep us busy and keep us off the streets.
	So I don't think there's going to be any more wujos between now and the end of the month.
	If we make it through to June 1, then I'll have a hooray, hooray, hooray.
	I was wrong, Wujo.
	And then I'll probably go off and work on my boat for a number of months while we decide what the hell we're going to do.
	If we have the Global Coastal event, you're probably not going to hear from me because we'll be isolated.
	And I'm not one to get involved with ham radios or any of that.
	There's no point.
	I'll have just a ton of work to do here in this major planetary cleanup.
	So either way, it looks like we've got our challenges cut out for us and a good bit of work ahead.
	One way, I've got to finish my boat and I get to retire and go sailing and that kind of stuff.
	And the other way, I've got to finish my boat because we're going to be needing it to do transportation back and forth because there aren't any bridges.
	And so, like I say, either way, we're going to get a shitload of work here.
	We've got to get some stuff done.
	And there's no point to be really being fearful about it or spending a lot of money now needlessly.
	If it happens, the infrastructure you can imagine is not going to be too existent in terms of there won't be satellites to run the just-in-time delivery system.
	Stores won't open.
	Electronic doors won't open.
	There'll still be stuff in buildings, though, and a lot of people will need to just get into those buildings and get the stuff.
	And I'm pretty sure that they will.
	And then we'll have to figure out how to make new stuff.
	And that's a whole series of thinking on its own.
	So somebody else needs to do that.
	And I guess that's really it.
	We're just waiting.
	16 days from my viewpoint, and then I'll start breathing a little easier from the 20th onward.
	I might be a little tense until the 26th.
	And then it'll be like, oh, I'll start fading into June 1 and say, okay, there we go.
	And we'll see.
	Not too long to wait.
	Thank you very much for listening.

▲