Clif High- halfpasthuman.com

[un chien anadolu]

Hi rawtruth --

...Clif's latest report offers much insight into how his view of his own work is changing and would be interesting fodder for discussion on this forum.

In my post I said that I didn't see much in Clif's May 25th report (other than "Israeli mistake", thank you, SAO, for correcting me on that) which correlates with predictions made by the C's, of which I gave 2 examples.

I think it would be interesting to discuss the contents of the report, with a view toward comparing and contrasting it with info from the C's as well as just looking at the information in general. Would you be willing to do a short paraphrase/summary of the main points, in a way that would be concise and easy to understand for members who don't have their own copies? I continue to be concerned about what is going on with Clif for reasons mentioned both on this thread and others, but there could be some potential benefit from an objective discussion of the report itself.

Hi Shijing, I agree with you. This part of the latest ALTA report attracted my attention most :

[quote author=Clif's May 25th ALTA report]
The data sets are gaining support from aspect/attributes that go to a space based ‘gas’ attack. This [gas] sub set is less than well defined, and may be merely in a building phase, so not really ready to manifest, however the shorter term sets would tend to indicate that its visibility should be showing over the next 3+ months.

The [gas] is described as being a visible type of problem that manifests for humans. While this [gas attack] sub set has many supporting sets, as well as extensive cross links over to the Terra entity where the terminations are within volcano activity, the specific of this sub set seems to be indicating that even if the volcanoes are the actual point of origination, the attack problem will come from near space.

So the idea coming across is perhaps that super fine dust or some other form of corrosive is ejected to areas so high in the atmosphere, that on the otherside of the planet it will come down from near space in such a manner as to cause both disruptions and failure of jets both military and commercial. Since the attack supporting layer is under the broader descriptor of gas, there is also a possibility of, and support in the aspect/attributes for atmospheric alterations that produce the same effect.
These alterations of the atmosphere may be such that high altitude jets fly into regions that are not tenable for human life and strange effects result.

[/quote]

Comet dust coming from upper atmosphere , maybe ?

[quote author=session 29 December 2009]

(Anart) Are they eventually going to just shut down international travel?

A: Yes

Q: (A***) How soon?

A: 8 months possible.
[/quote]

[quote author=session 25 April 2010]

Q: (Rabelais) Along that line, they mentioned that international travel would be shut down, but it would be temporary. Was this Iceland volcano event related to that?

A: First instance...

Q: (L) Anything further?

(Andromeda) Well, is it to be shut down again soon?

A: Ultimately.

[/quote]

 

[shijing]

Hi Shijing, I agree with you. This part of the latest ALTA report attracted my attention most :

[quote author=Clif's May 25th ALTA report]
The data sets are gaining support from aspect/attributes that go to a space based ‘gas’ attack. This [gas] sub set is less than well defined, and may be merely in a building phase, so not really ready to manifest, however the shorter term sets would tend to indicate that its visibility should be showing over the next 3+ months.

The [gas] is described as being a visible type of problem that manifests for humans. While this [gas attack] sub set has many supporting sets, as well as extensive cross links over to the Terra entity where the terminations are within volcano activity, the specific of this sub set seems to be indicating that even if the volcanoes are the actual point of origination, the attack problem will come from near space.

So the idea coming across is perhaps that super fine dust or some other form of corrosive is ejected to areas so high in the atmosphere, that on the otherside of the planet it will come down from near space in such a manner as to cause both disruptions and failure of jets both military and commercial. Since the attack supporting layer is under the broader descriptor of gas, there is also a possibility of, and support in the aspect/attributes for atmospheric alterations that produce the same effect.
These alterations of the atmosphere may be such that high altitude jets fly into regions that are not tenable for human life and strange effects result.

Comet dust coming from upper atmosphere , maybe ?
[/quote]

Yes, that's actually what I thought as well when I read that part of the report. Clif has not taken this possibility into account, but comet dust makes more sense than the alternative that he is considering involving ejected matter from volcanoes. A lot of reading between the lines can be done when you notice what the ALTA reports show as cross-linked, as in the case I bold above where the "gas attacks from space" are cross-linked over to Terra, terminating in volcanic activity; this makes a lot of sense within a model where comet dust causes drag on the Earth's rotation, weakening the magnetic field and leading to heightened tectonic and volcanic activity.

The following, directly below the part that you quoted above, is also interesting:

Other general screwiness seems to be on [hand] for the [summer (northern) hemisphere] as further [swirly things] will be seen both in the [sky] as well as [in near earth space]. These [swirly things] are indicated to be showing a form of [opposition] which the data sets describe as relating to the [spin direction (clockwise, or anti)]. These [swirly thing] alerts are showing as being something of a [really big deal] especially within the normally staid MSM. These are showing up as modelspace is progressed over late July and through August and early September.

Further [space strange oddities] are accruing under the [unknown energies] sub set and these have very heavy cross links over to the Terra entity where we have termination in [climate], and [high altitude jet stream patterns]. There are additional supporting sets within this area that provides cross links over to the populace entities where the termination points are [extra seasonal weather patterns], and [food crop failures]. Further into this lexical structure we encounter very large support for [planet wide tidal flooding] as well as [ocean disease] and [ocean water level rise(s)]. Some of these areas hold [undersea volcanoes] directly, indicating the link between the [unknown energies from space], and the soon-to-be-visible-acceleration of [sub oceanic volcanoes]. Further sub sets within this supporting set go to the [rising (new) lands] meme held now for a number of years within the data sets as being an increasingly [visible] phenomena here on Terra.

Within the whole area of cross links between the SpaceGoatFarts entity, and the Terra entity are patterns that in the past have been used to forecast major earthquake occurrences. If still accurate, these data sets are accreting in such a way as to suggest that our present pattern of large scale earthquakes will not decrease in 2010 or probably even 2011. The growth of the supporting sets in this area alone are likely indicators for even increasing numbers and magnitudes of destructive earthquakes. The indications are for several instances of [diaspora] including [earthquakes] over Summer and especially from August 5th onward through to the equinox in September.

The "swirly things" mentioned above bring to mind the way that comets have been depicted by swastikas and other similar "swirly" patterns in the past, based on the way their tails must have appeared as they passed through the atmosphere.

It is also interesting to note the cross-links between the "unknown energies (from space)" and climate, as well as undersea volcanoes. This again makes a lot of sense when placed within the context described above, assuming a causal relationship between comet dust-loading in the atmosphere and subsequent climatic as well as volcanic effects.

 

[shijing]

Hi Spur --

A question could be formulated, "The latest data analysis from Cliff High gave 5 possible scenarios based upon various interpretations of the data. Of the first 4 scenarios, which scenario has the highest incidence of being true?"

Say the reply is number 3.

You can then go to scenario number 3 and take the first sentence, read it out and ask if this is true.

If the answer is no, then a follow up question could be "of the other three scenarios between 1 and 4, which one of the scenarios has the better interpretation of the data relating to the first sentence of scenario number 4?"

From that point on you can continue to discect the various scenarios.

This could be looked at as well, certainly -- when you talk about formulating questions, are you intending that this be done during a C's session? If so, I'm not sure about the chances of that happening, but these could still be discussed here irregardless. If you would like to summarize the four scenarios, that would enable discussion about whether or not one or more of them might be going in the right direction.

 

[Spur]

Yes, I proposed the questions for a Cs session.

The report is 35 pages long and the data dump is a complex mixture of different words. Since Cliff has been doing this analysis since 1997, he is the most knowledgeable about how the words are arrived at and how they might be interpreted. Using his first 4 scenarios as a starting point takes advantage of his experience in the project.

I would expect that after the first few questions that the questioning would take on a life of its own as more information was acquired. At any time, the questioning could be taken back to the scenarios to begin another thread of inquiry. The resulting answers might make for a mosaic of information that results in a clearer picture of what the data seems to be suggesting.

 

[shijing]

Yes, I proposed the questions for a Cs session...

...I would expect that after the first few questions that the questioning would take on a life of its own as more information was acquired. At any time, the questioning could be taken back to the scenarios to begin another thread of inquiry. The resulting answers might make for a mosaic of information that results in a clearer picture of what the data seems to be suggesting.

If you really want to propose it as such, it might be good to do it on the Questions for the Cs subboard. However, if the relevant parts of the scenarios were described, it could also be discussed here on the forum just as well, and could just as easily "take on a life of its own" even without being brought up at a Cs session. If you want to try this latter option, you're welcome to do so here.

 

[Spur]

Shijing, this thread is already in the 'Questions for the Cs' subforum. Starting another thread of questions to deal with Clif High and Half Past Human seems redundant and may add unnecessary repetition between similar threads.

Laura has already dropped by this thread to add her views, so perhaps she will visit again.

As I recall from a previous session the Cs indicated that Clif was definitely on to something. It seems to me that with the recent data and scenarios from Clif's work, the questions that could be put to the Cs about the near future would be more focused, simply because of the already mined data.

If Laura does not have a copy of the recent data analysis, she can PM me and I will purchase another copy from HPH and have it sent to her.

 

[shijing]

Shijing, this thread is already in the 'Questions for the Cs' subforum. Starting another thread of questions to deal with Clif High and Half Past Human seems redundant and may add unnecessary repetition between similar threads.

Ah yes, I forgot we were already in that subforum. That's fine, then.

As I recall from a previous session the Cs indicated that Clif was definitely on to something. It seems to me that with the recent data and scenarios from Clif's work, the questions that could be put to the Cs about the near future would be more focused, simply because of the already mined data.

If Laura does not have a copy of the recent data analysis, she can PM me and I will purchase another copy from HPH and have it sent to her.

I'm sure she'll appreciate the offer -- in the event that it doesn't make it to a C's session, however, I just wanted to point out that discussion here is still an option, which is how most things on the forum get explored since time and topics are limited during the sessions. Feel free to do as you see fit :)

 

[Laura]

My time is extremely limited, as ya'll might guess, so it helps me a lot when things are discussed here on the forum. I can read over and if everybody is saying/thinking along lines similar to my own, I can make a short post, save time, don't have to post anything long and complex and can get to the next task. More and more, I notice that forum members are doing a darn fine job of analyzing stuff and even "intuiting" stuff for analysis.

Regarding Clif, there is something definitely off there but I hesitate at this point to speculate on what it might be - whether conscious or whether he's just a useful idiot. Because of his associations with certain individuals, and their known agendas, it puts his agenda into question.

 

[JEEP]

Other general screwiness seems to be on [hand] for the [summer (northern) hemisphere] as further [swirly things] will be seen both in the [sky] as well as [in near earth space]. These [swirly things] are indicated to be showing a form of [opposition] which the data sets describe as relating to the [spin direction (clockwise, or anti)]. These [swirly thing] alerts are showing as being something of a [really big deal] especially within the normally staid MSM. These are showing up as modelspace is progressed over late July and through August and early September.

FWIW, this made me think of the "swirly things" in the most recent HalfPastHuman ALTA report, the relevant part of which is reproduced here.

Interesting that this "swirly thing" occurred over Australia rather than the northern hemisphere (see http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glance/1064452/spiralling-ufo-over-australia for multiple pictures). As our upper atmosphere is replete with tons of space junk, perhaps what is happening is this spinning debris is now becoming visible because of the build up of cometary dust as has been previously noted. Perhaps they will become a really big deal because they are going to be observed in greater and frequent numbers and the populace is going to demand an explanation - TPTB will resist, I would think, providing the true explanation, cometary dust, and the implications of such. I am puzzled by the reference to "opposition" and the "spin direction/clockwise or anti". Could that be a metaphor - these swirly things will induce "opposition" to the Matrix reality and the usual MSM "spin direction" as to the truth of our reality?

 

[Spur]

Shijing, one of the things that Clif objects to is people sending copies of the reports all over the internet and discussing them. The reports then become part of the language that he is trying to analyse, in other words, it corrupts the data gathering. The changes in language that he is analysing become influenced by the various discussions of his reports. He has had to add various filters to different sites and other techniques in an effort to avoid this corruption.

Laura, since I have read much of your work, I realise that you do a considerable amount of research in order to write the things that you do. Clif's efforts could help reduce the amount of research. He has taken a very large and complex field of information and rendered it down into more bite-size bits. Essentially, he has tried to get a more objective analysis of the information that is out there by various techniques of catagorising and weighing the information. The reports are the end result of months of such work. To use a report as a basis of a question encompasses all that research in a condensed form.

Rather than rely upon the speculation of members of the forum, who do not have access to the raw data and the programs, it should be more beneficial to rely upon the speculation of the person who is at the coal face of this form of inquiry. The 4 scenarios are his 'best guess' of what the data indicates. The input of the Cs could help to further narrow down the information. If you didn't want to avail yourself to his report, then if you just asked a simple question "which one of the first four scenarios contains the higherst incidence of being correct?" I would appreciate it.

 

[RflctnOfU]

Shijing, one of the things that Clif objects to is people sending copies of the reports all over the internet and discussing them. The reports then become part of the language that he is trying to analyse, in other words, it corrupts the data gathering. The changes in language that he is analysing become influenced by the various discussions of his reports. He has had to add various filters to different sites and other techniques in an effort to avoid this corruption.

As I understand, the filter is already made, and a request could be made to add this forum.

Laura, since I have read much of your work, I realise that you do a considerable amount of research in order to write the things that you do. Clif's efforts could help reduce the amount of research. He has taken a very large and complex field of information and rendered it down into more bite-size bits. Essentially, he has tried to get a more objective analysis of the information that is out there by various techniques of catagorising and weighing the information. The reports are the end result of months of such work. To use a report as a basis of a question encompasses all that research in a condensed form.

Why the push to 'box' Laura's research?

Rather than rely upon the speculation of members of the forum, who do not have access to the raw data and the programs, it should be more beneficial to rely upon the speculation of the person who is at the coal face of this form of inquiry. The 4 scenarios are his 'best guess' of what the data indicates. The input of the Cs could help to further narrow down the information. If you didn't want to avail yourself to his report, then if you just asked a simple question "which one of the first four scenarios contains the higherst incidence of being correct?" I would appreciate it.

Why the 'focus' on those 4 scenarios? He prefaced those by saying it was monkey-mind interpretations.

The gist of your entire post is 'demanding the C's collaborate with Clif'. It seems as though you are very identified with the interpretations of the data which clif had given. Why is this so?

Kris

 

[shijing]

Shijing, one of the things that Clif objects to is people sending copies of the reports all over the internet and discussing them. The reports then become part of the language that he is trying to analyse, in other words, it corrupts the data gathering. The changes in language that he is analysing become influenced by the various discussions of his reports. He has had to add various filters to different sites and other techniques in an effort to avoid this corruption.

As I understand, the filter is already made, and a request could be made to add this forum.

You (Spur) are quite right about this, and in fact, I contacted Clif in the past about reproducing a specific section of text from his reports, so that he can build a filter (toward the beginning of this thread) -- just for the record, I have also contacted him about the text immediately above that was quoted by un chien anadolu and myself.

Rather than rely upon the speculation of members of the forum, who do not have access to the raw data and the programs, it should be more beneficial to rely upon the speculation of the person who is at the coal face of this form of inquiry. The 4 scenarios are his 'best guess' of what the data indicates. The input of the Cs could help to further narrow down the information. If you didn't want to avail yourself to his report, then if you just asked a simple question "which one of the first four scenarios contains the higherst incidence of being correct?" I would appreciate it.

Why the 'focus' on those 4 scenarios? He prefaced those by saying it was monkey-mind interpretations.

The gist of your entire post is 'demanding the C's collaborate with Clif'. It seems as though you are very identified with the interpretations of the data which clif had given. Why is this so?

RflctnOfU is right about this, Spur -- your "request" is couched in indirectly demanding terms, and you do come across as being quite identified with these scenarios, identification usually resulting in a loss of objectivity. It also seems as though you didn't fully digest the second paragraph of Laura's post immediately above.

Regarding the reliance upon the speculation of the members of this forum, this is one of the major reasons why the forum exists. The C's have often said things to the effect that they don't spoon-feed or lead by the hand, and that the way that we progress is by acquiring knowledge and then learning how to apply that knowledge ourselves. A discussion of the scenarios in question, in this context, would therefore probably be the most effective way of learning about them, and could also serve the purpose of refining the information in the event that the results of the discussion were ever used as the basis of a session question. I think it would be great for you to throw them out there (a summary of each scenario, anyway) for just this purpose, but again, it's up to you.

 

[Spur]

Kris, it appears that your interpretion of my paragraphs is more related to your state of mind than it is mine. Where in that paragraph (or in any of my posts) have I even hinted at 'boxing' in Laura's work?

As far as those four scenarios, please go back and read my paragraph. I thought I expained my logic adequately. However, if you are still confused as to my reasoning, then please indicate why the logic in that paragraph isn't more compelling that having a bunch of people without access to the report or the considerable amount of work and data that went into the report, speculate as to what it all means.

Nobody is 'demanding the Cs collaborate with Clif', the notion that the Cs would collaborate with Clif is absurd on its face.

I don't identify with Clif's work. I am a pensioner in Australia that looks at lots of different information to try and get a handle on what is going on in the world.

Yes, I suppose a filter of this forum could be requested. However, it isn't even necessary for the single question I proposed.

 

[Spur]

Wow, what is going on here. I just noticed that the tag under my 'handle' has now been changed to "a disturbance in the force".

 

[Lauranimal]

Easy does it Spur ;) The title comes with the number of posts you've made.