Edit Content

Main Menu

Fonts of Knowledge

More

Recommended Sites

banner

The Appliance of Science

The Q & A

Science, or science-fiction in many cases, as much of what we’re told is bunkum, even as those who tell it thumb a superior nose at the alt- or unproven (by their weights and measures) field, is perhaps the most fertile “authoritative” ground for the obfuscation of the truth. Well, that and official history. It sells us ideas as germs, whether or not they have any substance, in order to perforate an already prescribed paradigm – are we living in a simulation? Is the multiverse real? – while submerging us in inconceivable quantities of nonsense, both in terms of our physical health (virus theory, allopathic medicine) and our cosmic body (the nature of the Earth, the Universe at large). 

In most cases, you can assume anything official is, at best, other than the whole story. Which means being knowledgeable about established science is about as tenuous – or cabbage-like – as the same for aforementioned official history. This Q & A represent a taster, a toe in the water, across various terrains, from the speculative to the stamped and approved. There’s no time travel here, but the answer is yes (it’s real), and there’s a post on the subject (and likely to be others).

For the background to the Q & A, see the index page.

 


 

Q. Are nuclear weapons real?

 

No.

After Earth shape, the nuke lie is one of the most reality-rupturing conspiracy theories, since its ramifications are so pervasive (everyone must be in on it! Which means…) The gist is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in fact, firebombed. You can find much analysis of this across the Internet, but a good place to start, since it offers back and forth, might be the September Clues Research Forum. It may be that Christopher Nolan’s upcoming Oppenheimer is intended to shine a light on the truth behind the lies. Although, if it’s premiering at the Cannes Film Festival in May, White Hats will have to hurry up and set the scene for such an information cascade.

Why do it (the lie, not the film)? Well, there’s deception being an end unto itself: a false layer on the false bedrock, further concealing any perspective on the truth about the world from those who live in it; one essentially moulds a humanity living in a corrupted creation, not so far from holographic models or demiurgic designs in terms of distraction and delusion. And then there’s the very idea of it, which provides lots of lovely loosh to be consumed, both in the immediacy of the shock and awe, and the subsequent decades of fear-based, Cold War-infused imminent apocalypse.

Addendum 24/06/23: It appears the answer is they are not real, but they were real. If I were in a position to take parsing issue with the manner in which Higher Self sometimes responds to questions, this would be a primary example. While I can accept that “real” may be interpreted as “present in the world”, my interpretation would be “a fact, not imagined or supposed”. Thus, I was unprepared for this question to be answered in the negative simply because they are no longer real (that is, there are no longer any active nukes). Consequently, it seems Nolan’s Oppenheimer is to tell the truth about nukes because nukes are (or were) real.

So in general, I’ve been chasing the wrong conspiracy with this one, it seems. It’s almost inevitable that, when you think you’ve grasped the nettle of some subjects, you instead get stung to blue blazes. There’s long-standing theorising concerning the legitimacy of the nuke threat, and of nuclear technology generally, and as one who’d been dyed-in-the-wool terrified of all things atomic as a nipper, it took me a while to warm to it (probably in the last three or four years). Warm to it I did, though, and it seemed Q & A answers were confirming the counterfeit nature of the subject (this, however, as tends to be the case, was based on misconception of the parameters of the response).  

 


 

Q. Is nuclear energy real?

 

No.

One might not preclude the other – nukes aren’t real, but nuclear power is – but it’s a reasonable assumption that if one stinks, both do.

Addendum 24/06/23: Likewise, in respect of the previous answer, it seems nuclear energy isn’t real not because nuclear plants weren’t using fissile material, but because they are no longer doing so. 

 


 

Q. Is nuclear energy actually hydrogen power?

 

No.

As in, the stuff nuclear power stations are using to produce that power (some have suggested they aren’t producing anything).

 


 

Q.  Is nuclear energy actually cheap power derived from caesium via electron production?

 

Yes.

You can find more on this theory in a paper by dedicated disinformation agent Miles Mathis. Miles’ disinfo is such that there’s plenty of lamb in there, but also acres of dressed-up mutton that needs separating out to get to it.

Addendum 24/06/23: It appears this is one of the ways nuclear plants produce(d) energy. However, this should not be taken as an endorsement of Miles, who is otherwise promoting the nukes as fake amongst his various disinfo targets.

 


 

Q. Was the Hadron Collider’s purpose to open portals?

 

Yes.

Ah yes, CERN. The European Organisation for Nuclear Research. Nothing at all nefarious about the Hadron Collider, accelerating particles like nobody’s business and obviously having absolutely nothing to do with any rituals on its grounds, which were officially – because Wikipedia tells you so – a prank and a hoax.

 


 

Q. Was the Hadron Collider experimenting with time travel?

 

No.

This doesn’t necessarily preclude Donald Marshall’s understanding that it was used in connection with Project Pegasus (below). In which case, the operative word would be “experimenting”.

 


 

Q. Was the Hadron Collider the cause of the Mandela Effect?

 

No.

The Mandela Effect being, so it would seem, stubborn traces of parallel realities or scrubbed timelines (while we’re on the subject of Wikipedia, being as scrupulous as it is, the Effect only warrants a subsection of the page on False Memory, so you should be grateful they’re here to clear that up for you). Most singularly and titularly, there’s Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 1980s, 23 years before he officially pegged it (above and beyond this, it seems Nelson may indeed have died decades before his published demise and been replaced). There are scores of other examples, mostly of a pop-culture nature, which might suggest, if indeed it is a legit “thing” and is engineered, that its purpose is simply to screw with people’s heads.

 


 

Q. Is The Mandela Effect real?

 

Yes.

 


 

Q. Is the Mandela Effect artificially caused? 

 

No.

 


 

Q. Is the Mandela Effect a natural phenomenon?

 

Yes.

The effect is, in the main, one of the last ten years (since 2012).

It relates to parallel universes, the emphasis being on hypothetical ones (akin to choosing possible options off a rack). This doesn’t mean they’re physically co-existing with our universe (so not your increasingly over-popularised multiverse).

The awareness of the Mandela Effect over the past decade reflects an energetic change. This change isn’t a negative thing. It’s a part of us, and it was happening before this time.

 


 

Q. Are probable realities, as referenced in the Seth Material, the explanation for the Mandela Effect?

 

Yes.

As Seth has, it there are probable pasts, probable futures and probable selves, in a system “as complicated as the reincarnational one”: “A portion of the whole self focuses in reincarnational cycles and handles developments there. Another portion focuses in probabilities and handles developments there”. Mercifully, this does not, however, mean there’s a reality where we have sausages for fingers. 

The Seth Material can be a little obtuse when it comes to the language of probabilities (“as you read this book, you are but one of the probable yous. Other probable yous would not consider you real, of course, and some might indignantly question your existence”). I tend to make the distinction, for the sake of unnecessarily scrambled brains, that while these probable actions and probable selves, “are a portion of your identity or soul”, “you have not chosen to actualise them physically”. 

Seth states, “You exist in the middle of the probable system of reality”, which may be some small comfort, even though we inevitably get sucked into the treacherous terrain of infinite regressions – “Each probable system of reality of course then creates other such systems, and anyone act, realised, brings forth an infinite number of ‘unrealised’ acts that will also find their actualisation” – and that way, obviously, lies madness. At least, from a 3D perspective.

I’m still left with specific examples I’d like to follow up at some point, such as the ever-urgent case of Moonraker and Dolly’s braces…

 


 

Q. Are clones real?

Yes.

More on the cloning subject can be found in a post relating, in large part, to Donald Marshall’s testimony. A case could be presented that there’s no need for clones to exist as an explanation for the anomalous world-stage presences of great and not-so-good variants, anomalies and malfunctions – in the forms of such applications as doubles, masks, CGI, robots – but it seems they are here, and they’re being used in abundance.

 


 

Q. Do the White Hats use clones?

 

Yes.

 


 

Q. Would it be the White Hats preference not to use clones (whereby it’s a necessity borne of current conditions)?

 

Yes.

For something they’d rather not utilise, it has to be admitted they aren’t backwards in using forwards.

 


 

Q. For how long has cloning been used?

 

Since the 1960s. Essentially since humans have had access to the technology/ developed it.

I need to revisit this in a bit more detail, as it seems quite late compared to most estimates, often ones involving Nazis (and, of course, such is the nature of this labyrinth, developing cloning at a certain point doesn’t necessarily mean they haven’t been used earlier, via the miracle of time travel).

Addendum 23/03/23: Human cloning was first developed in the 1930s. However, it was not put into common use until the 1960s.

 


 

Q. Can clones be programmed?

 

Yes.

 


 

Q. Do clones have a limited lifespan? 

 

Yes.

I believe the answer was in the region of 10 years, but it’s another I will have to recheck.

 


 

Q. Can a soul inhabit or operate a clone?

 

Yes. 

 


 

Q. Is a clone capable of functioning without either a soul/ consciousness inhabiting it or its being programmed?

 

No.

 


 

Q. Do clone babies have souls?

 

Yes.

Clone babies have souls, but clones of adults do not.

 


 

Q. Are the therapeutics now in chemtrails general/ broad spectrum/ health giving?

 

No.

Previous testing suggested chemtrails were no longer negative, and that they now contain “therapeutics”. Given such a development, I’m unsure this means every instance of their use can be guaranteed a “positive”, in the same way that switching out the coof vaccine doesn’t mean anyone getting a shot or booster will be receiving one from the new non-inimical stock. 

 


 

Q. Are the therapeutics now in chemtrails intended to counteract effects of the jab?

 

No.

The therapeutics now in chemtrails are to raise our vibrations, wake us up and lift our energies.

It would be reasonable to suggest they aren’t doing such a bang-up job so far, but then, they surely have an uphill struggle.

 


 

Q. Were these therapeutics produced on Earth? Off-world?

 

They have been manufactured both on Earth and elsewhere in the Universe.  

This question derives from the assumption that it would likely be quite a task to muster up the quantities needed.

 


 

Q. Was the purpose of chemtrails to ionise the atmosphere? 

 

Yes.

Various theories have been mooted over the years, this being the most popular (with the objective of actualising the smart grid, and from thence our brave new transhumanist future). Another posited was terraforming for the benefit of our lizardy rulers.

 


 

Q. Are satellites real? 

 

Yes.

The reasoning being that something somewhere doesn’t compute if space – in which satellites supposedly orbit the Earth – is not what we are told it is.

 


 

Q. Are satellites positioned at high altitudes within the Earth’s atmosphere?

 

Yes. 

Satellites are held up by balloons.

We’ve seen clear evidence of this very recently, obviously. One might even suggest the news story represents an intended trickle-effect reveal, of a “Oh, so that’s what that was about” nature, looking ahead to the point when the full unvarnished eventually drops.

 


 

Q. Is DNA real?

 

Yes. 

I mean, of course it is. Science tells us so! But they tell us lots of things, including such junk as most of it being “junk”.

 


 

Q. Can DNA be sequenced?

 

No.

It’s suggested that there’s a spiritual element to this.

 


 

Q. Was the Philadelphia Experiment real?

 

Yes.

This was, of course, the alleged World War II invisibility experiment involving the destroyer USS Eldridge in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, one that induced a side effect of teleporting it to Norfolk, Virginia for several minutes before returning. Resultant crew injuries included madness and partly merging with the deck of the ship. Nikola Tesla’s research was variously reported to have been utilised. Other claims – one shouldn’t conclude everything said about the Project is legit – include those by Al Bielek involving time travel (many of which feature in the 1984 movie The Philadelphia Experiment). Bielek’s name also surfaces in connection with…  

 


 

Q. Was the Montauk Project real?

 

Yes.

You know, the secret government project that formed the basis for Netflix’s massively popular Stranger Things (initially called Montauk). An offshoot of Project Rainbow (the Philadelphia Experiment) and named the Phoenix Project, it used decommissioned US Air Force base Camp Hero at Montauk, Long Island. 

Mind control research (MKUltra) had long formed part of CIA rudiments, but this was altogether more extravagant. Spanning the early-70s to early-80s, the project developed the capabilities of the “Montauk boys’, with the focus on harnessing, or tapping, their psychic abilities through mental and physical torture. A range of experiments included telepathy, teleportation, time portals, and the unleashing of the Montauk beast, along with Bielek and Duncan Cameron being transported from 1943 to Camp Hero in 1983. A not-dead Tesla was also cited as chief director of operations at the base.

The Montauk Project: Experiments in Time by Preston B Nichols and Peter Moon makes for a decent read on the subject, although the subsequent sequels and follow ups – mostly from Moon – become increasingly tenuous and thin on material. There’s something of a cottage industry related to alleged participants, and some unsavoury stories circulating in respect of that aspect. As with the Philadelphia Experiment, one should avoid assuming everything reported about the project is bona fide.

 


 

Q. Does an AI/Artificial Intelligence have a role in controlling the Earth? 

 

No.

One did, however (this relates to Dark Forces activities). This will be broached further in a forthcoming post on Corey Goode’s varied testimony.

 


 

Q. Was Project Pegasus real?

 

Yes.

Per Donald Marshall, Project Pegasus was “Quantum hopping… They will use the Hadron collider to collide protons… which will BLAP the day back to the last time they collided protons, JUST like the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray”.

There was no limit to the number of times this tech could be used (in contrast to Marshall’s understanding).

 


 

Q. Was Project Camelot an actual plan?

 

Yes.

This was a scheme by Dark Forces/ Black Hats to create a messiah figure.

I didn’t ask about Project Bluebeam as it’s so well documented anyway.

 


 

Q. Was Project Looking Glass real?

 

Yes.

The Looking Glass was a device to predict the potential probability of future events (again, the project’s existence doesn’t preclude a raft of accompanying disinformation, particularly when it’s of the fear-based inclination). In this instance, one version has it that the bad guys are destined to lose out in all potential outcomes: “It’s an evolution of consciousness that cannot, will not and no matter what decisions or possibilities are injected into the equation eventually it all resolves down to us all learning the truth and becoming aware of this massive dam of lies that has been built that keep us from knowing massive volume of information that we should otherwise possess”. It was, it’s said, based on back-engineered ET tech originally designed for portal opening.

 


 

Most Popular

What is currently passing for knowledge around here.

  • Well, in principle, everything can be done. In principle.
    Movie
    Well, in principle, everything can be done. In principle.
  • Your spy novels are cheesy crap!
    Movie
    Your spy novels are cheesy crap!
  • movies 1980 to 1999
    Index
    movies 1980 to 1999
  • movies 2000 to 2009
    Index
    movies 2000 to 2009
  • Starseeds, Walk-ins & NPCs
    The Q & A
    Starseeds, Walk-ins & NPCs
  • What difference does anything make anymore?
    Movie
    What difference does anything make anymore?