Project Camelot - Clark McClelland & Project Paperclip

[gripreaper]

Posted by Paul (here)
the physics mastery of Paul LaViolette, the names and history mastery of Joseph P. Farrell, and the numbers mastery of Catherine Austin Fitts ...

And you Paul, have found the tripartite holy grail for the current times. Please take note those who can stand back from the canvas far enough to see the big picture and not get hung up on any one group of pixels.

[araucaria]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Yes, Kerry has always been a little discombobulated by numbers, magnitudes, distances, physics, names and history.

So I guess we start worrying when, one day, Kerry shows up with the physics mastery of Paul LaViolette, the names and history mastery of Joseph P. Farrell, and the numbers mastery of Catherine Austin Fitts ... (have some other beings incarnated in Kerry's body?)

If I begin by stating that Kerry is a wonderful lady doing a wonderful job, may I now go on to explore the idea that this crazy upside-down logic presents an aporia, or seemingly insurmountable difficulty, that cannot simply be swept under the carpet by suggesting that an accurate big picture view can be built up from a corpus of wildly vague details? Or that the big picture is a starting point that leads to such a vaguely pixellated picture. Or that Kerry is merely the interviewer giving a voice to the experts. There is an elephant in the room here that can only turn people away if they feel that a scientist for example cannot be serious if he is talking to someone so ‘discombobulated’: at some stage, the discombobulatation has got to be rubbing off on the interviewee.

The Moon is a little under 22 hundred miles across (2160 to be precise). Compared with 22 million, that is an error of four orders of magnitude. How bad is that? I once spotted a typo in New Scientist stating that there were 109 galaxies in the visible universe (instead of 10^9). That is an error of seven orders of magnitude, which is of course comically worse than four, which would amount to saying there are 100,000 galaxies instead of a billion. To visualize this, imagine a middle term at the top of the image below.

In terms of space age engineering, this sort of sloppiness is of course so absolutely unthinkable that we need to scale back to a child’s meccano set to see what happens when tolerances are repeatedly ignored. I recently had a little girl here trying to build an Eiffel Tower: the base assembly compounded too many approximations for the vertical pieces to even meet at the top, so she could never finish her tower of Babel. Alternatively, we may think of something more in the manner of a sophisticated and elegant architecture that is built on constantly moving ground and yet miraculously stays up – for the time being at least. I was talking only the other day about the Leaning Tower of Pisa. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post988290 ).

Here is another analogy for what seems to be going on. A while back I scanned a reproduction of a jet black section of a fine art work. However, on zooming in, there was not a single pixel of black. Whether this was due to the printer’s ink or the artist’s paint, the bottom line is that the eye can see a very deep black that actually contains no black at all, only various shades of indigo and violet. In his book Men in Black (1995), John Harvey retraces the history of fashion in terms of improving approximations of black, which started out as a muddy dark brown. Twenty years on, it is often difficult to find a garment in any other colour. And the same goes for white: some of the finest pictures of driven snow are colourful paintings by Monet. In other words, the problem lies with our visual limited-spectrum colour wheel from red to indigo that closes in on itself, somewhere between the extremes of black and white, which can only be guessed at.

The solution to the problem lies in recognizing the false symmetry of this picture. Whereas white light is the combination of the entire spectrum, blackness is its impossibly complete, reduced-spectrum negation: it can only be approximated in the real world since the real world is the all, and its opposite, nothing, is… nothing, i.e. no-existent. Hence the issue of no stars in the night sky, and a fortiori why no blue sky, is anything but anecdotal. It is black ops clearly overstepping the mark, as it was bound to do sooner or later. Total darkness is a fiction, it does not exist. You may as well turn back, there is nothing to see here, passing off as something – not quite literally nothing, let’s say next to nothing. See how this works here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post988415

Finally, the other major Moon anomaly is its size: as a natural satellite, it is far too big to be where it is – the very definition of an elephant in the living-room. So, on reflection, I would see Kerry’s ‘moon shot’, conflating four orders of magnitude, not so much as an intellectual demonstration of the big picture as its physical embodiment. This is precisely what is to be expected from a lightworker delving into these matters. The Leaning Tower of Pisa will collapse just as soon as we stop shoring it up.

For how this is done, see this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post969181

[araucaria]

I have another difficulty, with regard to Clark McClelland, whom I accept as a true whistle-blower in dire financial straits and who needs help. This has nothing to do with acceptance or otherwise of his declaration regarding a star 22 times the size of Sun, accompanied by a Dyson sphere, approaching us from the constellation Aries, although I would admit to difficulty conceiving of a ‘dark giant’ wherever it might be. It sounds like a whole new astronomical concept, since dark stars and brown dwarves generally fail as stars for being too small. But leaving that to one side, the problem is as follows. It concerns his sale of Moon-related artefacts and memorabilia at what are acceptable prices for collectors’ items. What makes them any different from Corey’s coffee mugs? It makes laudable sense for someone strapped for cash to offer whatever possessions he has for sale (as opposed to merchandise) rather than just hold out a hand for donations. Again, I wish Mr McClelland well; my issue is with the status of these items.

Take a sympathizer who is able and willing to make a small donation and is considering going the extra mile to buy a signed photo of astronaut Irwin on the Moon carrying a portion of gold leaf taken to the Moon and back as a component of the LEM (lunar excursion module) also pictured. Supposing he does not see it as an investment to pass on at a profit, what might motivate him to acquire this item?

A chunk of metal or any other inanimate object in this context is totally useless. To the extent that its back-from-the-Moonness is entirely in the mind of the beholder, it is to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a fake. Compare with a person who has been to Australia and back: you can tell the difference because they are more interesting – talkative and insightful – for having had the experience. In other words, the journey has a meaningful reality. The trouble with the Moon business is that even the humans came back no more communicative than the inanimate object, which is why the accusation of fakery is able to stick. Hence to buy such an item would be like buying into the inhuman silence surrounding this episode. So far, this is akin to drinking Corey’s koolaid in Corey’s mug: better perhaps donate cash after all.

This is before we come to the nature of the artifact: gold, and gold leaf to boot. One property of gold is its extreme malleability: one ounce of gold leaf will cover 300 square feet, so if you need to show off your wealth for purposes of wielding power, you can line a large palace and/or church with gold at very little expense. If this moon gold were 1 square inch in size, which it isn’t, it would weigh 1/43200nd of an ounce, literally worth the proverbial 2 cents. So you have a contradiction between infinitesimally above zero intrinsic value expressed in the language of wealth. This sort of wealth is the scarcity paradigm in action. Gold as a commodity is 3-dimensional; this fool’s gold is only 2-dimensional, meaning that this golden lunar module is just more glitter with little substance, only skimming the surface of the black budget. But the scarcity paradigm is precisely what we are seeking to reach beyond.

So we have a memento of something we want to forget, having zero intrinsic value, and zero sentimental value: where does this leave us? With a poor old whistle-blower who needs help. Part of that help is old-paradigm financial to be sure, but he needs something more – other – than that, call it spiritual support. The cruel truth is that at some stage, he too will need to close this part of his store. Meanwhile, better buy his chapters.