All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2020 - Clif High
50:43
Critical Thinking Jan 7 2020 What the PLUCK? David Wilcock & Corey Goode correct? CW & Zenn wrong?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, oh, well, look.
Damn.
All right, so where to start?
Okay, well, right from the beginning, what the pluck?
CW and this fellow at Unspirituality channel on YouTube are quite incorrect, quite wrong, frequently, mostly, always.
I hate using always, but mostly, let's say 90% of the time, when they cite authority, and that authority being science.
Okay?
And the reason that that is the case does not necessarily make David Wilcock and Corey Good and the whole blue chicken cult correct about anything, but it does weaken their arguments, and they need to be very specific and they need to understand where they're wrong and why they're wrong.
All right.
And so this is a pay attention, guys, because it's all about your thinking, and you're mushy.
You know, you're mushy in your thinking.
You're accusing these other people of living in fantasy and so on, but your thinking is about as solid as oatmeal.
It's not clear.
It has no substantiation.
And you can sink way down in it.
You can go way deep, but it does not necessarily make it accurate or effective.
And at the core of our argument here is that we have CW and Zen citing science as their authority.
And what they're really doing, if you look at it, because they're using broad general terms about things, they're citing the consensus.
Let's put that here.
The consensus of science is their authority.
And as we in the conspiracy world may want to characterize it, we would say mainstream.
And so that's the authority that both CWN and Zen rely on a lot.
Now, here's the funny part of this, okay?
So we have, we have, let me get another color here.
This is all very illustrative, and it's a roundabout screwy kind of a thing because that's the way my mind works.
But here we have CW, the, you know, pistol packing bushy-bearded Wild West attorney, and we have, and he cites mainstream authority and science is a mainstream authority for his arguments against Corey and David Wilcock quite frequently, as well as Jordan Saylor and so on.
As I will occasionally, okay?
But I do it a little bit differently, you'll notice.
So we have this like versus kind of a thing, right?
This is our worldwide woo-woo mental wrestling lineup here.
Okay, so worldwide mental wrestling.
All right?
And our lineup features CW and Zen over here versus David Wilcock.
And I don't mean to leave people out over here on the CW side.
I'll get to that in a second.
But David Wilcock, Corey Good, Jordan Sather, a lot of these people I've never heard of, this Jay Essex fellow, Donald Marshall, and a bunch of other people.
I mean, like a lot of other people.
Well, there's a bunch of really strange wackadoodles out there in woo-woo land.
And these people enjoy being wackadoodle, okay?
So they give into it.
And that, I think, is the expression that both Zen and CW go after, is the fact that these people are not attempting, well, especially like the con artists, are not attempting to actually expose an aspect of reality that people have not discovered and could examine themselves.
Rather, they're just trying to sell a fantasy.
And that's what CW and Zen used, the mainstream authority of science, to debunk.
Only here's their problem.
This ain't a thing.
The consensus, mainstream authority in science, does not exist.
It is not a thing.
If we look at it, and you can go Google this.
Well, let me stop for a second and say, you know, I come from a technical world.
Inventions, computers, software, firmware, printed circuit boards, you know, design, all of this kind of thing.
And there's one truism in the technical world, all right?
It can be proven.
And so we have proven over here.
And this is one of the defining characteristics of, this is the defining characteristic of the technical reality and the technical mind.
So I know if I go, and I've had this experience, right?
I've gone, I've worked for some of the smartest organizations on this planet.
That is to say, rooms where I would go on in and I might actually lower the average IQ, all right?
And just by my mere presence.
But I know for a, that was a mite.
I have no real way of knowing that.
But I would know for a fact that my walking on in there would lower the average number of PhDs in the room, that kind of thing.
And master's degree, etc.
But the reason I was at that room is because when I walked in, the average number of patents went up.
And patents are an interesting thing because it's proof of persistence around an original idea, okay?
And original thinking is very difficult to come by.
It's creativity that's very difficult to come by, especially in the technical world.
Because the technical world is logical, persistent, stepwise, refinement, proof of concept, due diligence, validation, all of these kind of things, right?
It's also contention, fierce battles.
So I've been in rooms, like I was saying, at places like Microsoft where ideas are presented and you have to defend those ideas in the presence of many people that are intensely opposed to your particular approach or your particular idea because of the political ramifications within the organization or within the project itself.
And I've been on huge projects there where there were hundreds of programmers, five or six senior software engineers, administrative staff up the yin-yang, and so big damn projects and stuff.
And so when you go into these rooms in a technical thing, it's real straightforward.
There's lots of jumping up and down and yelling and cussing and screaming and this kind of thing.
But as soon as it devolved into personality contacts, attacks, ad hominem attacks, it's like, fuck it.
I'd stand on up and say, prove your point.
Because see, here's the thing.
With technical stuff, you can always prove your point.
If I say that a particular kind of software does this particular kind of action when you have this particular kind of input and the output is XYZ, I can prove that.
If I say there's a potential under certain circumstances that it will not behave that way, and you should be aware of this, I usually can prove that those conditions could exist to a technical mind, even if we can't actually engineer it because we haven't got a big enough prototype yet to test it in real world conditions against an actual 100,000 users or a million users or so on.
And I'm bitching and moaning, and this has happened before, about the flaws within the testing procedures and where we'll get caught up.
But my point is that all of these things can be proven.
They can be huge, long-drawn-out battles that go for days and days and days, but they can be proven.
And ultimately, you win or you lose because you can prove your point or you cannot, right?
Or you can find the flaw in your thinking.
Many times I was wrong, but I was glad to be wrong under the circumstances and find the flaw in my thinking and because it led to progress in getting the technical project further along.
Usually I was not wrong.
So this is the world I come from, is technical.
Technical lives off of critical thinking.
The ability to run code through your head, see how the, and know that what each line of code is going to line out to in terms of assembly language, how that assembly language will be interpreted within the moving of the registers and the primary ring within the CPU, etc., etc., etc., so that you can predict what the outcome might be and look for flaws or better ways to do it, these kind of things.
Technical, I love technical because it works.
So in our woo-woo mental wrestling here, I have a tendency to approach everything from a critical thinking or a technical viewpoint.
So, and this affects my life.
It affects my life in a very positive way, for instance, because I approached cancer therapy on my own body this way.
And it's like I can prove it or I can prove it works or it doesn't work by various different mechanisms, right?
In ingesting the substance, whatever it might be.
I mean, just a rational examination of whether this is a good approach or not.
A therapy could work or could not.
And then I try it out and I can validate my thinking about it.
And being a technical guy, I don't take any of this shit on faith.
You know, a doctor tells me X, Y, Z. It's like I go and research it and I find that X, Y, and Z are not accurate.
It's like, you're fired, dude.
You're the person that I'm hiring as a professional expert in cancer, an oncologist.
And your most common answer to my questions is, I don't know, or never heard of that test before.
Or, well, XYZ.
And then I go check XYZ and they turn out to be wrong.
That guy gets shit canned real quick because I'm a technician.
And they call me up and they want me to do some stupid ass test because it's a year later after the surgery and it's their protocol, but I don't benefit from it.
And it's entirely, in my viewpoint, it makes them money and adds to the national database on shit, but in no way benefits my life or progress.
Fuck it.
No, I'm not going to do it.
These things can be proven to work or not work for me, general society, wherever you want to go.
Just as a way of thinking about it that is critical.
We examine it for critical flaws, also for critical success.
So anyway, here's the point of all of this, right?
We've got CW and Zed, all of these hard-hitting videos, you know, David Wilcox, Corey Good, Donald Marshall, and more.
And then science, science, science.
And the hell of it is, guys, and like CW, you know, it's like, dude, I'd sit you down right here and I'd give you a cup of really strong tea and for the Brownian motion effect.
And then I would tell you exactly what you're looking at.
You're trying to use consensus among scientists as an authority and citing that as mainstream within our social paradigm.
Ergo, it is authority.
It's self-validating, self-referencing.
And there's no flaw in that, but there's tons of flaw in that.
That's because consensus, hang on, let me get another color here.
Consensus of mainstream science is not a thing.
It's a moving target.
It's a thought process over time.
Okay, and so this is time.
And we all know that the consensus of mainstream reality changes continually.
That's what Earth is.
It's constant, constant change.
And it bubbles up eventually into mainstream reality.
It bubbles up eventually into science and so on.
And we no longer, you know, prescribe amputation of the foot for conditions that are not warranted, like getting shot in the ass, right?
Or we don't bleed people just to get rid of excess vaporous bad blood.
But here's the beauty of all of this, guys.
You have to be really careful with this consensus of reality stuff.
So let's apply it to medical shit here for a second.
Modern medicine is cyclical and comes back to some wild ass screwy ideas.
So way the fuck back in time, the medical practitioners knew you had bad blood and bad humor, but they were modern.
They were cool.
This is like, you know, 16, 1700s, right?
They weren't falling for this old get out a knife and slash on your veins business.
They had the state of the art.
They had leeches.
Leeches, damn, damn, state of the art medical stuff.
Get rid of that bad blood.
Slap some of those puppies on you and off you go.
You'll be good as gold in no time.
Well, hey, leeches are back.
Leeches fell out of favor in modern times, but in modern times, they're back because it was cyclical.
And they found out it wasn't just the bleeding, but the leeches actually secrete a substance that's beneficial for you under certain circumstances.
And in some cases, you can get a benefit out of having these things actually applied to your body in a medicinal therapeutic manner, right?
So let's not say that, you know, modern science is stationary, constant, or consistent.
It's not.
Medical science, any of these disciplines.
And here's the beauty of it.
You can validate me on this because I'm a technical guy.
Now here's the thing, guys.
You should validate me on this because I get loose with numbers.
So I'll read tons of shit.
And by tons of shit, I mean I got a software program that presents words to me at 2,300 words per minute.
And so I might go through tens of thousands of words in a day in just reading, unless it's like a book like Boscovich's Theora Naturalis Philosophy, because I've got to study each and every paragraph, think about it, integrate it.
So that takes a long time for me to go through those.
But regular mishmash on the internet kind of stuff, that whips right by because I've got the software program I wrote.
Now, that program allows me to read stuff, but it also means that there's so much stuff going through here that I can get sloppy on numbers.
So I'm going to present you with a number, but you really should validate me on this, especially if you're going to come back and say you're wrong, all right?
Because I could be wrong on the number, but the concept is valid.
Frequently that will be the case.
My numeracy will be off by a few digits one way or another, but it'll be numeracy intended to illustrate a concept, and the concept is valid whether or not it's 18 or 17 or 16.
Okay?
So let's make Jordan Sather's day.
Anybody who's a follow who's watched any of Jordan Sather's videos is going to fucking freak out will make his day here.
Because there's a curious fact here.
Okay.
And the fact is 17.
And Jordan is real hot on 17 because that's the number of the cue.
Okay.
And if you're Q savvy, you know that 17 is a cool number.
Okay, so 17 years.
All right?
17 years is how long it takes this consensus to move through time.
So the consensus is not really a thing that is pointing to an exactness.
It's much more like this very large spread that is shifting through time as all of the, which is makes sense because science is composed of humans, scientists that have to form opinions on their own.
And why 17 years?
Because that's how long it takes the older ones to die off in generational clumps.
And that's how science progresses.
So let's not pretend, CW or Zen, that science is any kind of an authority, especially mainstream, especially the consensus, because you guys are basing it not really on science per se, but on academia.
Which means institutions, which are subjected to all kinds of corruption.
So anything that these academic institutions tell you officially written out has to be read through the filter of corruption that is running their organization, that has polluted their organization over time, because it is an institution.
It is an organization.
It is not clear thinking.
So academia, in my opinion, is very suspect to be cited.
I don't mind citing individual studies.
I don't, because usually I've looked at them, I've read the studies, wherever I was unfamiliar with it, I would go and read about the methodology so I can tell whether that methodology could be validly applied to whatever the hell we were looking at, whatever the issue was under contention, because I come from tech world and it can be proven.
This is true even in the medical shit.
I've come back from cancer.
I've gained back vast quantities of muscle mass.
I'm getting mean and pissy again.
I know I'm starting to feel good.
And so I'm taking on some of these buttheads, okay?
So butthead number one is CW.
Butthead is a behavior.
It's not an identity.
It's not a consistency or some way to define yourself forever.
It's a snapshot in time when you do something buttheaded.
And being buttheaded in this instance is using the mainstream science to try and debunk David or Corey or Jordan Sether or any of these other people because they're masters at using their masters at using the academia.
These guys here use academia against you in the arguments.
That's what their whole modus operandi is.
Take current events, wrap it up into their fantasy paradigm, and spit it out as though those current events validate their particular position and their overall paradigm.
And there's so many holes in all of it.
The only way they can deal with this is to never face the opposition.
That was Corey Good's fatal flaw.
He started responding.
His personality was such that as a bully, that he had to respond to those people because he felt himself personally threatened.
And so he's got into a situation where he's responding to the people and it's broken down.
David Wilcock was able to manage this year after year after year up until about 2012 when he peaked and he crashed out and it's been downhill all the rest of the way.
And now he's reinventing himself as a dream maven, dream interpreter this time around and apparently getting out of, you know, going deep into spirituality and getting out of the woo-woo part of things, you know, that other aspect, the UFOs and stuff.
So he's had to make changes.
And it's because you keep coming up to this point where their version of reality never materializes because their paradigm is ultimately flawed, in spite of the fact that they can sell some people some of the time for a period of time that mainstream shit is validating them.
And so for Corey or for CW and Zen to take on David, Corey, and there's other guys here, Steve Cambion, Stina, Jay Widener, myself, all kinds of people, right?
So when I take them on about any one of their points, I want to get down to it at a technical level to just prove that they're absolute fucking assholes, okay?
Or they're totally wrong.
And so we're going to take a diversion here at the moment and talk about Carrie Cassidy.
So Kerry Cassidy's got this very dapper looking fellow.
Looks like just the kind of guy you would want to sit down with in a pub and buy him a pint and listen to him and talk to him and so on.
I kid you not.
I mean, just I saw this thumbnail and she got me just like that, right?
This guy looks like the okay, so I know a lot of English guys because I used to work for GEC Marconi, British Airlines, a bunch of these other people writing software, designing software, working on machinery bits, all this kind of thing.
So we go back and forth to England for a while and they come over here a lot too because a lot of them work for Microsoft.
I was doing a contract for Microsoft.
I got involved with a bunch of these guys.
And so I met a bunch of British programmers.
And the British programmers were without exception just the marvelous guys, salt of the earth.
Absolutely soccer hooligans.
Absolutely soccer hooligans.
Never go out with them on a Friday night.
Never, never, never, never, never go out with them on a Friday night, you know, unless you're taking along a spare liver.
But salt of the earth, right?
Work their asses off.
But for them, Friday starts around noon.
So you just got to be careful about that.
Going into all of this here with Kerry Cassidy and this guy.
This guy was, he looks like one of these classes of, I want to say surprising.
You know, you just don't think that when you first meet them, they're well-dressed, they're soft-spoken, they're somewhat small-boned.
This particular, you know, like grade of Englishmen, right?
They're not usually very tall.
They look like they'd be really good for mining in that sense.
Or work in IT.
They'd be good cable pullers because they can get in there and stuff, right?
My hands are too big for that.
I just ran into all kinds of obstacles.
Anyway, there's this class of these people that I was working with, software programmers, that I got to meet that would shock the pants off of you because you get them over here, get them out of the work environment.
And as I say, these guys are soccer hooligans.
And just because he's four foot nothing doesn't mean that he isn't going to piss somebody off in a bar up in Redmond and get your ass into trouble trying to deal with a couple of guys from a local sports team that took offense to what this little their term, not mine, puny shrimp, had to say.
So, you know, a good thing I didn't drink.
I mean, seriously.
And, you know.
Anyway, so anyway, that's what this guy looked like.
That's what he reminded me.
You know, this thumbnail of Kerry Cassidy, it's in her latest video up there, right?
This guy's a spy.
Oh, this is cool shit.
So I can go to look at this.
And it's so fucking sad.
I only got three minutes and 20 some odd seconds into it.
And it's like, boink, I'm out of there.
And the reason was the guy said, made an asshole statement that was technical.
Further, he amplified his asshole statement by saying, I don't know how this technical shit works, but it does.
I don't know how this particular weird ass science thing I'm claiming to exist does, does work, but it does.
And it's like, dude, if it does work, it can be proven.
Don't be making technical assertions like that because you're going to get called out by people like me that are saying, you're full of shit.
And if you're a spy, I never, ever, ever would have relied on your analysis.
Maybe I might have relied on your ability to schmoo people into giving you shit, but I wouldn't have relied on your ability to know what the hell was being handed to you and effectively pass it back to me because you don't know what you're talking about about 4G and 5G and cell towers and shit, right?
That suck it over on demand 5G statement you're making is total horseshit.
And Kerry Cassidy frequently has guests that are 100% horseshit regurgitators on stuff, but this was a new one.
I'd never heard anything that blatant of a statement.
Now, Carrie makes all kinds of statements herself that are in defiance of our common shared reality and the physics that underlie it.
Now, here's where we are back to our mainstream authority.
I'm not citing mainstream authority physics as my authority.
I don't think these bastards know what they're talking about.
And I can prove it because I'm a technical guy.
I can prove that quantum doesn't exist.
I can argue the pants off of any physicist into a point where they will rip their hair out, cry tears, piss themselves, and run fleeing from the room because they cannot fulfill a logical debate about their subject based on the idea of atoms, quantum physics, etc., etc.
Just simply runs into all these dead ends and they've had to make up all of this shit.
And you get into all of this nasty mathematics, none of which is clear thinking.
Okay.
It's deep thinking, but not clear.
And it doesn't yield anything.
We don't run any of our goods in our society on any fucking thing ever invented by Einstein because he never invented anything.
Same thing is true of Feynman, the great physicist.
I love Feynman.
He's just a great guy.
But he was a mathematician.
He was in love with his own mathematics.
He was working on a failed, false premise and made that premise even more obtuse and did not ever invent shit that is running in our lives.
Nikola Tesla, on the other hand, has a car company named after him that's about electricity.
He invented for us every fucking thing you're going to touch today that produces electricity that you use.
Every fucking thing came out of that one man's mind through his patents.
Prove me wrong.
Okay?
So you go look up all of Tesla's stuff and then you find out something.
Tesla thought Einstein was a squirrely, fuzzy-headed thinker, okay?
And that he was fuzzy in his thinking, every bit as his hair was fuzzy, and that he was a plagiarist.
This is proven.
We now know Einstein plagiarized all of that shit.
And Nikola Tesla said, the ether exists.
E does not equal mc squared.
You can never get energy out of matter.
And because matter is a condensate that can't be returned to an energetic state.
And we can prove this by fucking nuclear explosions, which are not nuclear, they're electric.
All of these things that I'm stating, I'd be happy to debate physicists on.
I've got time coming up.
We can make a couple of days available.
You know, you got to bring your own food, that kind of thing, right?
Anyway, so getting back to this, I'm not using mainstream authority science or academia to support my contentions because I know that these bastards are in a 17-year cycle for any given discipline.
Some of them are even worse.
So for instance, geology, anything having to do with rocks and all the hard sciences, or hard condensed matter kind of shit, that's not 27 or 17 years, it's 37 years.
So the consensus takes 37 years to go through there.
Archaeology is nearly as bad at 28.
Okay, archaeology has a consensus shift of 28 years.
So you're looking at a band that is 28 years long.
And anywhere within that 28 years, the consensus is moving.
And that's forming.
And right in the middle, there's this light peak period.
And you can define that right there as the consensus for what?
This year, this minute, next five minutes, or so on.
Because science, by its nature, is this moving kind of a thing.
Academia, there, CWNZen, is an institution laid across science, and the process and the academic thing is what accounts for this cycle.
Science itself is discovery.
So at any given point in any given time, we can have a new scientific discovery emerge that totally upends all of this.
And it does not matter because academia will take 17 years on average per discipline to reach that point of understanding this new radical understanding of things.
So you can't really use mainstream science to refute David because he's arguing the same kind of point I am.
But his thinking is not clear.
His intent is I'm not going to comment on.
And the result is money flowing to him that, in my opinion, they, you know, we won't comment on that.
Anyway, but David, Corey, Jordan Sather, I don't know about this Donald Marshall guy or this JSX fellow or any of that kind of shit.
But these blue chicken kind of guys, the woo-woo sorts of fellows, are manipulating this understanding for their benefit in support of their paradigm, even though their paradigm is 100% bullshit and getting bullshittier by the day.
Now, here's something that else is going to.
Okay, so Jordan Sather is involved with supporting Corey, but he's now involved with Edge of Wonder guys.
Edge of Wonder guys are involved with Falun Gong, Epoch Times, and all of this, but they're also involved with Corey Good and the Blue Chicken Cult.
So all these guys are double cultures, okay?
They're double cultures.
So they're like ringed in here.
And Q, you can say that Q is a cult now for a lot of different reasons, okay?
And so they might even be triple cultures.
And in the double culting business, these guys, Jordan Sather, Edge of Wonder Boys, this kind of stuff, they're not at the same level as David Wilcock.
They're ancillary to provide support for and are independent of, to some extent, Corey Goode and his level of kind of stuff, right?
But let's not be confused.
Edge of Wonder and Jordan Sather are actually citing cult leaders as authorities.
Anytime Edge of Wonder cites Corey Good or Jordan Sather, Jordan Sather is his own cult leader in a sense.
He's leading an internet cult around Q and around MMS, which is a form of bleach, chlorine dioxide, and he can't dispute that.
He tries, but it doesn't work.
And he's his own form of a cult leader.
And anytime Edge of Wonder cites either of these guys in any of their videos, or anytime that Corey Good cites Jordan Wonder, Jordan Wonder, Jordan Sather or Edge of Wonder Boys in his videos, they're just simply citing circuitous references that point back to their own butt because that's where they're pulling all of this shit out of, right?
And so this, they're not actually citing any authorities anywhere.
Same thing is true of Dr. Michael Sala, Mr. Oatmeal-brained par excellence, whose thinking is muddied beyond understanding.
And he's a doctor of what?
You know, so obviously there's a case of where, hey, what school did you graduate from there, Dr. Michael Sala?
And then you say, hey, boy, don't you go there.
Don't go to that school.
Look what they produced.
Anyway, anyway, so, you know, and I'm getting on everybody's case.
It's going to rile up a lot of individuals.
But I'm old, I'm retired, I got nothing else to do, and I'm about to be sued, have the shit sued out of me by Corey Good as the galactic ambassador and the Pope and the blue chickens.
So, you know, I got a lot of shit coming my way.
So I figured, get out all of this stuff.
Get it off my chest here.
Every time I see CW, I love the guy, right?
And there have been times I wanted to have Kelly just slap him upside the head for making stupid statements that can be so easily disproved.
You know, he gets all wrapped up in stuff and then cites some authority that ain't.
And you've got to be really careful about that kind of stuff or not.
You know, he really doesn't.
He doesn't have to be careful about any of it.
David Wilcox certainly isn't careful.
None of these individuals are particularly taken to task for their bad behavior or their bad books, their bad conclusions, and their poor reference citing, as in the case of David Wilcock with all of his books.
He's a best-selling author, maybe technically, in the sense of he met some metric somewhere.
But if you've ever tried to read his books, you know that he's not a good educator, can't think clearly, seems to have cut and paste vast quantities of this stuff without ever trying to make the joins.
And, you know, basically, in my opinion, it wasn't worth spending any money on.
So, in our mental woo-woo or mental wrestling woo-woo dojo here, getting back to CWN Zen, be happy to take you on at any time about any given aspect of consensus opinion because that's what you cite, even though you don't ever use those terms.
You're actually saying, you know, the consensus opinion of mainstream science in this particular discipline is.
And it's like, well, that's a statement that can be proven or not for that particular instance, and that's really as far as it goes.
There are many ways to refute David and Corey Good.
I really rag on David in lots of private conversations because of the conclusions that are brought up in some of his books, right?
I had this one guy get hold of me about Cozy Rev because David Wilcock wrote some book that he really liked, and this guy read it a couple of times and he cites Cozy Rev and all this kind of stuff.
And then, so I had him on a phone conversation when we were talking, and David's references to Cozy Rev, his conclusions that he makes off of Cozy Rev's data, is basically bogus.
I was able to actually go to websites with Cozy Rev's stuff translated out and prove to him that Wilcock just cherry-picked what he wanted to support this wild ass idea.
And that Cozy Rev was not, in fact, working on time travel and didn't do anything to support looking glass.
And that brings up all of this other shit.
Okay.
So a lot of the channelers, all of them are nuts, right?
They're all wackadoodle.
And if they're not wackadoodle, how can we trust any of the stuff that they're spewing out anyway?
Unless we had some kind of a technical kind of a thing to have a proven characteristic.
So that's why I like Steve Campion.
He got on the case of the Billy Meyer supporter, right?
And he said, why doesn't somebody provide us a cancer cure for cancer in children?
It's not that simple, Stephen.
It's not a simple disease.
It's not like there's a bacteria or a virus.
It's a condition.
So there's not going to be a single anything that addresses cancer.
But I take your point.
And basically, he's saying, why don't you provide a single element of proof?
And thereafter, all of your other stuff will be elevated.
But right at the moment, it's all down there with the horseshit and the dung pile, and we're about to sweep it out of the stable because we ain't got no proof from Billy Meyer.
And we can see that he made all of his photos with trash cans and spray painting them.
And your claim that it's impossible for him to have done that because he only has one arm, A, is an ableist kind of a statement.
B is not critical thinking because we don't know what he's capable of, even with one arm.
You know, a lot of amputees are true fucking heroes in what they can do.
So, you know, don't give me that bullshit just because we think he's so crippled he's not able to do this, therefore it must be real.
Bullshit, dude.
Those are Christmas balls and trash can lids and garden hose.
And you can even see on one of his old photos, you can even lift off the brand name of the Swiss company that produced the garden hose.
So, anyway, so there's a lot of muddy thinking, a lot of people trying to pass off stuff as critical thinking that is not.
And critical thinking is like stuff that derives from tech.
Okay, critical thinking is how can I prove this shit wrong?
And that's where it starts, okay?
Because you get a feeling, which is an emotion, that is irritating your mind to the point where you look at some idea and you say, well, that doesn't make any sense.
That's bogus.
That's bullshit.
That's wrong.
And so you want to prove it just to make yourself feel better.
Or if no other reason, right?
And so that's what critical thinking is.
That's what academia should be.
But it's actually what is the pinnacle of science, is critical thinking, where someone is attempting to prove some other bastard wrong, therefore makes up a bunch of experiments that in his mind proves that particular point, executes the experiments, they come out the way that he plans those experiments, and they do prove his point, and ergo science advances.
And that's how we get this moving consensus, is through critical thinking propelling us along on all of this, because humans get an emotion to where one guy says, no, Fred, you know, they're sitting around having beers, a couple of scientists.
He said, no, Fred, you're wrong.
You're wrong.
And I can prove it.
And then Fred says back to him, okay, Eugene, you know, how?
And then they start thinking about it and they get critical about it and they try and falsify it.
And you come up with experiments and science advances.
I know because I've worked for sciences, for scientists.
I've actually worked as lab assistant and stuff.
I've seen this process from the bottom up, right?
I've watched it from a ground up, washing Erlingmeyer flasks, washing beakers, all of these different kinds of things, you know, decanting acids, all of that sort of shit.
And so I've seen all of this kind of stuff.
And I understand what CW and Zen are trying to do, right?
They're trying to prove that the thinking over here with these blue chicken cult people is worse than muddied.
It's, you know, absolute shit.
Gummy shit, as a matter of fact, because it sticks up your brain a lot.
But anyway, but they got to be careful about how they do this because they're citing stuff that I know to be bogus.
And so you've got people using the word quantum.
And it's like, okay, prove to me that quantum particles, any size, any amount of them ever existed any time.
And you can't.
You know, just like, but I want people to prove a positive.
I'm not asking them to prove a negative.
I'm not asking them to prove that they don't exist.
I can tell you why they don't exist.
And I can tell you that why every time that the scientists have thought they've looked at them, they were not.
They were not looking at what they thought they were looking at.
Okay.
So, and this shit is tricky, right?
I've worked around scanning electron microscopes, providing support for them.
And, you know, scanning electron microscope has never actually seen, has never actually given you a view of any item anytime ever on this planet because they can't.
The electrons themselves, the beam, the scanning electron beam of them, would erode the sample.
It doesn't matter if it's flesh, if it's a cockroach, even cockroaches get eroded by these beams.
And you just get this black lump in terms of an image.
So what they have to do is they've got to vaporize gold or some other metal or alloys in a particular environment in which that sample is placed, cause things to occur electrically with that sample such that this vaporized gold adheres to it, and then that's what you look at.
So does the vaporized gold and the vaporizing process alter the sample?
One could argue that every single sample ever seen in a scanning electron microscope was indeed altered by the process of getting that sample in there.
And you must acknowledge this.
So under the circumstances, everything in science is a bit mushy.
But if you take it from a technical viewpoint, you can always get it back up to the point where you can prove something or you cannot.
And even not being able to falsify something gives you valid knowledge.
It tells you we can go no further than this point in our thinking at this stage.
Okay?
Doesn't mean we won't be able to go further in the future when new shit is discovered, but at this stage, we can't.
And that is valuable to know.
Okay, so at the moment, okay, so an example of that.
Okay, so let me get back to, so Kerry Cassidy's guy, Peter the Spy, I think his name was Peter, says this technical statement that I know to be bogus that 5G is sucked over to your phone when you turn your phone on, you walk around with your phone.
That's absolute horseshit.
It doesn't work that way.
5G is in no way different than 4G or 3G or any of this other shit relative to the cell towers itself.
And it cannot be individually applied to any individual phone because it's radiated out in a generalized sense.
This is how electromagnetic radiation works, whether it's radio waves or whatever.
So this guy is 100% wrong.
So from this point on, I've got to drop the Kerry Cassidy thing.
No point in me looking at it because I'm disgusted with what he said at a technical level because I know it is not true.
And I could further, I could go and prove it was not true by citing even academic sources that would tell him it's not true.
And no matter how much he says, well, it's secret spy shit that even academics, no, it doesn't come out to that guy.
Because some of us can think about this at a technical level.
We worked in enough stuff at a technical level to know that you're saying bullshit, just like all this stuff about AI.
And, you know, I'm getting tired of arguing about people with the AI.
And 100% of the understanding of AI in the woo-woo world is wrong.
There's no such thing as a sentient computer under any circumstances.
Whoa, we're still recording.
Okay, we just dropped for a second.
Dropped some frames here because of the big storms.
Anyway, I get off here, wrap it up real quick and post it.
Yeah, there's no essentially an AI or computers or any of that.
Fear of that is your own fears.
It's your own projection.
It has nothing to do with reality.
It doesn't exist that way.
Our future going forward is going to be incredibly chaotic because this shit right here is breaking loose, okay?
Because the consensus is breaking loose now that we've got all these different kinds of things affecting the underlying science churn.
Okay, in science, we're churning down in here all the time for trying to produce these new breakthroughs, right?
That should actually be more of an onk figure.
But these new breakthroughs arise out of this shit down in here that's going on.
This is now getting fractured because we've got computers, we can generate ever so much faster.
So the churn rate itself is increasing.
So we're now getting, instead of one single point, we're going to get several points like this.
And so in actual example, and then I'll say enough of this and go get another cup of coffee.
So I'm watching the UFO thing on the Navy, right?
The Nimitz and the UFO and the video.
And there's a point in there at the very beginning where the plane flies on up and the UFO is sitting there going, whoa!
Okay, I was like, whoa, what's happening here?
You know?
And it's sitting there rocking itself back and forth like a batshit hummingbird.
And, you know, a hummingbird on Mescaline or something.
And it's like, struck my brain.
Okay, there's something there.
No comment on it.
The video goes on.
You see this thing goes zipping out and so on.
But there was no comment on that.
And so I'm thinking to myself, and then I listen, this was odd.
This was beyond odd, this particular action.
And I could tell all kinds of things about it.
I won't go into it and bore you at the moment.
But what it led to was me seeing every different kind of view of that I could find on the internet.
And then it didn't mean anything to me.
Time passes.
I get into Boscovich's book.
I read through 177 pages or something like that.
And I'm reading into this one particular section and I read two little paragraphs.
And it's like, I understand.
I understand why that UFO was behaving that way and why it was a batshit hummingbird vibrating.
I understand what propelled it that way.
I understand it is not an artifact of the camera or the jet or its movement.
It is not an artifact of the software used to store the information coming in through its telemetry.
It's not an artifact of the transfer process to get that telemetry to a hard disk, to get it to a video, to get it to my eyes.
It is, in fact, an artifact of the drive propulsion that existed in that UFO, and I know how it was driving itself.
I know its propulsion mechanism.
Now, I don't know the tech, I couldn't build the motor or the guide waves that allowed it to do what it does in its propulsion thing, but I know how they work.
And if I were to see one, I would know it because of being able to see how it was constructed.
And I would be able to say, of these six devices, you know, these two are the drive components that make it all work.
And these over here are the stabilizers.
And I can show you why this occurs.
And it's going to occur just as an artifact of this particular drive mechanism.
And the beings that were within that UFO did not experience it that way.
Okay.
And it has nothing to do with plasma or all these other bullshit explanations that are coming out from people that still think that, you know, when they drink a cup of coffee, they're actually consuming little tiny beads of coffee material in the form of atoms.
It does not work that way.
We don't live in that world.
We're about ready to cycle back, by the way, okay?
So like I was saying about the leeches cycle, right?
Maybe it was the 1600 that leeches, so this is where you got to check my numbers.
Leeches were in vogue.
Maybe it was in the 1600s.
Whatever it was, they started coming back into vogue in, let's say, the 1990s.
People started experimenting on them.
And now it became somewhat mainstream in these narrow disciplines.
And we have leeches back in hospitals again, right?
So big 200, 300-year gap.
Well, there's larger cycles that are in effect now.
That's why I like using the thousand-year cycle for my food.
If humans have been eating it for a thousand years, it's probably pretty safe for me, and I've got a fairly good track record of being able to find out all the parameters about it.
But if they just grew it yesterday and started consuming it, nope, nope, I'll wait a few years, right?
Anyway, though, so the cycles that we're going through here are going to be totally upended this year, wholly blown apart into little tiny fractured bits.
And that's why poor CW and Zen are going to have all of the marbles fall out of their ears and walk around going, oh my God, oh my god, oh my god.
Because their underpinnings are going to be gone.
And so, you know, with no underpinnings, they're going to be stomping around like they've never felt gravity before and they're scared of the sky.
And it's going to be a great year.
Not because of that, but I'm going to enjoy seeing David Wilcock and all these guys thrash around and go through all of this bullshit.
And I'm going to enjoy all of the change and the chaos that's going to infect my life and CW and Zen and all these other people.
It's going to be a great year.
We're going to get a lot more back towards this.
So anyway, go have fun with magnets.
Remember, every time you touch something electrical, you say, praise Tesla.
▲
Export Selection