Greetings yet again. Indeed, once again. This is JLL coming at you with Gnostic Intel on the Internet.
It's been quite a while, about six weeks or so, since you've heard from me. So I'm happy to assure you that I'm fine and all is well in my world. I'm safe and secure and in the best of health and my animal companions as well are in fine fettle and so thank you for asking really thank you for your queries and kind concern about how I'm doing and thank you as well for the continuing donations that show up even though I haven't been active on the internet, uploading any material for this period of time considerable break actually.
But in the spirit of that break I offer you a song. You'll find it linked on the tracking page. It's another Jazz vocalization from the Portuguese singer Maria Zhao. She does a version of take five and there are some lyrics in that which I send you away happily. It's a very upbeat message and it's an extraordinary upbeat performance coming from her.
As you may know if you have followed the investigation so far well you certainly will know that the jazz vocalization of Maria Zhao illustrates or demonstrates what I call Sophianic baby talk.
In the Mandela effect you are being subjected to Sophianic baby talk. Now someone who hears that for the first time perhaps just dropping in on this clip might be a little baffled by that expression.
It comes as a great delight, it comes as a great privilege and a pleasure and a delight in the path of planetary tantra to have this kind of jargon. It's really, you know, shamanic tradecraft. Like spies sit around in shadowy bars and park benches in various parts of the world and they trade secrets of the trade and they talk in the jargon of spies. All elitist and specialist groups talk in their jargon whether they be golfers or whether they be nuclear physicists.
So Sophianic baby talk is part of the jargon of planetary tantra and it's specific to the workings of the Mandela effect. So I send you that song. Take five. I took five and now I'm back. It's the 29th of July 2017. This would be installment number 50 in Mandela Effect decoded and I'm calling it “Operation Broomstick, bizarre case of a psyop intercepted”.
So put a question mark at the end of that. A psyop intercepted. That's a pretty odd notion. What is a psyop intercepted? I'm going to invite you, I am inviting you to look into that issue, that arresting or intriguing proposition in this current talk.
Now I'm a little bit awkward on my feet at the moment. I'm a little bit unsteady on my feet. The role of the Nahual is to be steady and to steady the approach to the unknown. Did you know that?
The role of the Nahual is twofold, to steady the approach to the unknown and to provide syntax, that is to provide operative descriptions for transactions of power between the ordinary and non-ordinary worlds.
How do you like that language? Do you find that appealing? You know, there's no metaphysical jargon involved in that language. And speaking of the jargon of planetary tantra, I can assure you that there is no specious, speculative and metaphysical jargon involved.
The trade talk or the trade craft and the slang of this practice is all testable and verifiable and really, really, really down to earth. So, I may be a little bit rusty getting started here. You know, I could, well, I don't know, say something inappropriate. I could misspeak. I could mispronounce some words, perhaps, before I get up and running. I could strike the wrong note.
And what would you do if I sang out of tune? Would you stand up and walk out on me? Or what would you think? What would you think if I sang out of tune? What would you do? What would you think? What would you think? What would you do?There's a ping.
That's a Mandela effect that's currently pinging. Did you pick up on that one? Coming from the old Beatles classic, with a little help from my friends. Now there are many people who just stall on the ping. Stalling on the ping seems to be the common and widespread reaction to Mandela effects.
But remember that one of the principles of this investigation is that the ping is like a ping in a telecommunications network. It's just a way to access your attention. And once it has your attention, then there is a message delivered through the ping. What would you do? What would you think? Do. Think. Think. Do.
What are you doing with the Mandela Effect? Are you just thinking about it? Or are you going to do something with it? Well, of course, the object of this investigation has been clear from the beginning.
I intend to do something with the Mandela Effect. To do and not to think. And I won't be singing out of tune as I do so. Because the objective, the stated objective is attunement to the mind of the planetary animal mother, isn't it? Attunement to her mind. And attunement to the event that she presents to the human species at this time. Namely, the super-learning event.
So there's a lot more to say about that event. I want you to understand that I understand the Mandela Effect investigation to be a journey toward that event. It marks out a kind of trajectory taking you and I into the core of that super-learning event. So what would you do if I sang in attunement. Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Well, I must say, from my observation of current trends, that the Mandela effect and the general interest in it, whatever its magnitude may be, it's really hard to judge, is beginning to falter and fade out.
And there are a good number of people who have been, let's say, intrigued by this phenomenon, who are just going to stand up and walk out of the event. Well, indeed. I mean, how could they do otherwise without the proper guidance?
Anyone who does not follow this investigation to become involved with the mind of the planet that which is running the Mandela effect is not going to be able to get to that event so they will stand up and walk out on an absolutely momentous opportunity.
But that's okay, because Aeon Sophia likes to gamble on the low odds, and she's not after quantity. And if you're wondering how much attention she needs, or how many people she needs, how many individual human creatures she needs to get what she's transmitting through the Mandela effect, well, join the crowd, I wonder about that too.
But I never let my mind settle on a figure because it doesn't compute in terms of quantity, it computes in terms of intensity, intensity of participation and density of participation, but not in the number of participants.
So anyway, that's a little bit of a digression. Let's move now into the heart of this investigation.
As your veteran sleuth on the case of the Mandela effect, I've left you at the crime scene, haven't I? Left you to your own devices. You are the CSI. The crime scene investigation team and I trust your snoopy talents. I trust your abilities to work through the evidence.
So in the previous talk I outlined or I presented a summary and an inventory of the clues and cues that have been decoded so far and I left you with that. In the meantime I went off on a little investigation of my own. And this is something that a serious and sober detective has to do from time to time.
In fact, it's a current, recurrent theme in many detective novels and films and many thrillers and many murder mysteries. “Call for the dead” by John Le Carre for instance involves this particular issue which is the issue of how a crime comes to be reported or discovered in the first place. Do you think about that?
There we were, there we have been for 49 installments on the crime scene working the evidence, working the evidence chains in the form of mythophrenic and mythopoetic fugues questioning the suspects questioning the eyewitnesses distinguishing the false spurious and planted evidence from genuine evidence.
You know all this is routine at the same time there is always in every case and in some cases it's crucial. The necessity to go and consider how it came about that a crime came to be reported in the first place. Who reported it? You know, sometimes crimes are reported to 9-11 by an anonymous call, right?
Was the Mandela Effect phenomenon reported in that way? No. Sometimes crimes are reported. This is a twist in thrillers and cop films and cop novels. Sometimes a crime is reported by the perpetrator or an accessory or someone who knows something important that could lead to the solution of the crime but does not tell that to the investigators.
So, is that the case here with the Mandela Effect? Have you ever considered that question? Well, I have and I've spent the last month or so looking into it off and on in the course of doing some other matters which included receiving and organizing my library and archives collected for over 50 years of my life at a vault or depot where they are now kept for safekeeping and where they will be preserved and organized and presented for the use of future generations.
So off and on during the process of working with this tremendous inheritance of my research, which I now prepare to hand over to others, I went and looked into the case of Fiona Broom. And so I have a Fiona Broom file.
I've written up a prece or synopsis of my investigation and I'm calling it Operation Broomstick. After all, Fiona Broom does claim to be a witch. She took the name broom as an allusion to her calling, which is a paranormal investigator.
So, upon questioning the suspect, is she a suspect, is she a witness? Well, we don't know at the beginning. Upon looking into the history of the suspect, Fiona Broom, I find out, which you will easily find out as well, that she has a history, a personal background of being an investigator with the paranormal who's particularly interested in contacting people who are dead.
Some people accuse her of being an evil person, a necromancer, someone who calls up the spirits of the dead. She investigates haunted houses and things of that type. She's a psychic and a paranormal sleuth in her own right. If you are to believe the legend.
You know, in tradecraft of espionage, as demonstrated in the novels of John le Carré, who was a master novelist of the 20th century, the term legend refers to a cover story created for an agent.
So if you're a spy and you're going to be sent on a mission into a certain country, into a certain situation, you are given an identity, a cover story, a history and you have to rehearse and learn this history by heart and only your handler or perhaps a few other people involved with the mission know your history.
So you carry a legend, that's it's called in espionage slang, you carry a legend that has been constructed for you in accord with the objectives of your mission. Well, is the story about Fiona Broom true and actual? Are the facts in quotes, is the information you find about her on the internet factual and true, or is it a legend? Is Fiona Broom a real person, or is she a made-up person?
Well, I've been contemplating this question for over a month now, and you will find on the tracking page a link to a PDF file “Operation broomstick”, which is the file summary of what I have compiled in my investigation of Fiona Broom and the question of how the Mandela effect came to be discovered and named in the first place. Tak.
Now in the remainder of this installment I'm going to take you more or less point by point through the case file on Fiona Broome, and we're going to look at what I call Operation Broomstick. Before I begin, however, I must add this caveat.
My research shows that information about, in the first place, about who is actually Fiona Broome valid trustworthy information and information about how she developed the concept of the Mandela Effect into what it is today and supported and endorsed and guided the research and dialogue required to build up the Mandela Effect, if you get my drift, and if she did indeed do that, well, information regarding how she did that is very, very thin on the ground.
You know, if you put Fiona Broom in a YouTube search, only two clips come up on her channel. And neither of them is about the Mandela effect. Now, that in itself is a fact, which anyone can verify which I would say will immediately engage and activate your snoopy talents, your probative faculty. And my cautionary remark here is that I can only speculate at the end of this talk, I can only speculate, I can only present provisional conclusions which are some, in some respects, inconclusive conclusions, inconclusive interpretations. I'm warning you of this, about this from the beginning.
Due to the fact that valid and verifiable information about Fiona Broom, who is said to have originated the term Mandela Effect and defined the first case and about how she has been involved with investigations and dialogue regarding this effect is very, very sparse.
And there really isn't enough evidence, in my view, to make a strong case for the claim that the whole thing is a setup, that the whole thing was a psyop, or was initially intended to be a psyop in which she played a role.
But the role she played is not easy to determine if that was indeed the case. Anyway, I'll allow you to form your own judgments as we proceed. I just wanted to make that cautionary remark at the outset.
Now, something else that you'll certainly notice if you do just a little bit of preliminary investigation is that. One of the clips that comes up, if you query Fiona Broom plus Mandela Effect, loudly announces itself in this way.
The Mandela Effect completely debunked, that's written in capital letters, Fiona Broom's website and idiocy. And that clip has been on the internet for three months and it has 281 views. Well, what do you conclude from that?
I would conclude that there's not a great deal of debate, in fact there's hardly a glimmer of debate or controversy regarding the possibility that Fiona Broom may be a fictional person and her introduction of the Mandela effect may have been some kind of con or psyop because if a large number of people, a large proportion of the people who are intrigued by the effect whether they consider it genuine or not would certainly be involved in that debate and would certainly want to know so I think it's quite remarkable that there is so little debate upon this point. I mean, three months, 281 views is not, it's nothing. It's just a trickle of interest. So anyway, those are some immediate observations.
Now let's continue. Now I advise that you print out the PDF on Operation Broomstick and go through it with me as I run down the points. Note that I've indicated by three symbols that there are three different kinds of information contained in this summary.
The first one, indicated by the paragraph symbol, is reported events relating to the origin and name of the Mandel Effect and Fiona Broome. The second kind of entry, indicated by a hashtag, is the Sophianic meme or message as it developed in parallel with the Mandela Effect, the GNE, Gaian Navigation Experiment, some of my talks, Mythophrenia, and so forth.
And finally, the entries indicated by a black dot or bullet refer to celestial timing. They refer to omens in the sky, to planetary events, and to navigational allusions, particularly to the planet Jupiter, which plays a tremendous role in Sophia's correction and also stands in the background of the Mandela effect.
But as of July 2017, this very month may well have come into the foreground, as I shall explain in a forthcoming talk. Let's begin with the initial case. According to Fiona Broome's own website, MandelaEffect.com, she was attending the DragonCon conference in September of 2009 and that's when the conversation happened.
She was talking with some people and they had different memories of the moment when Nelson Mandela had died. Well, in 2009, by one account Nelson Mandela was still alive and he would be alive again for four years. I believe he is said to have died from one account in December 2013.
So there was Fiona Broom by her own account at the DragonCon conference and this conversation triggered a thought. Oh, well, maybe there's some kind of psychic or paranormal phenomenon operating here behind this situation. Well, just hold on a minute.
I mean, this is the way the story is told. And by the way, I also want to point out that when you go and look for versions of the initial reporting of the crime, as I'm calling it, when you go and look for accounts of this conversation that allegedly happened and who was involved and how the conversation proceeded and what subsequently came from that conversation, you find that the evidence is extremely thin. It's as if really, I mean it's as if someone wrote a legend consisting of a short paragraph describing how the Mandela Effect was discovered at Dragon Con.
And then every other place you look simply has cut and paste that paragraph. So this is suspicious. Don't you find this to be suspicious? That perhaps I'm overlooking some evidence, but as far as I can tell, according to my probative faculties and the time I put into investigating this on the internet, there is no convincing fleshed out account of this moment. It's just a thin cover story. It has all the look of a manufactured legend that's shallow. It's a shallow legend.
Additional to that, there is an essential problem with that legend. Fiona Broom claims, on her site, that the conversation happened at DragonCon, which occurred on September 4th through the 7th, 2009. But almost every other account that you will find of a second party account says it occurred in 2010. So when did this conversation happen? Well, it can't be determined. As I said, the evidence in this case is very thin.
It can't be determined, but what can be determined is the fact that mandelaeffect.com, which is her site, and where you find writings by her today, although not principally writings on the Mandela Effect, was registered in August of 2010. And if you look at note 1 in the Operation Broomstick memo, you'll see that I have copied the domain registration details.
5th of August 2010, domain name MandelaEffect.com sponsoring registrar, registrar enom inc sponsoring registrar IANA ID colon 48 and further information says registrant name who is guard protected. That's spelled W H O I S G U A R D as one word protected. Registrant organization Whois Guard Incorporated. Registrant location Panama. Well that's pretty exotic.
So whether the conversation that kicked this whole thing off happened in 2009 or 2010 cannot be determined but if it happened in 2010 as most second-party reports indicate then she actually registered the name Mandela Effect a month before the conversation happened in which she came up with the idea of the Mandela Effect.
And if it was in 2009 that she attended it and the conversation took place, then she waited almost a full year before registering the site named after that phenomenon. Something here really doesn't stand up. It doesn't hang together so well, does it?
In my opinion, speaking just intimately to you on the team, I consider this evidence of the report of the crime to be flimsy, insubstantial, and extremely dubious. But it gets even worse. It gets even more dubious. So we continue down the chronological list.
So let's just say that investigation of the Mandela effect commenced in the fall of 2010 when the site was registered. And let's presume that that site created by Fiona Broome was dedicated to developing this notion.
So what can we assume? We have to assume that she came up with one case, which was the dead or alive Nelson Mandela thing, and somehow that one case developed into 15 other categories of cases of the Mandela effect over a period of time.
Well, how did that development happen? How did the concept widen to include these other cases which are utterly different from the question of when people remember the death of a celebrated person, you know?
You all know that Elvis died, right? But when did Elvis die? Did Richard Burton die? When did he die? Did Anthony Hopkins die? Is he dead or not? He could be dead and you wouldn't know it. So that particular instance, the inceptive case, somehow prompted Fiona Broome to begin an investigation. But how did that investigation proceed?
How did it produce the body of inquiry and the instances which now stand in the 15 categories that I have outlined? How did this all come about? Well, guess what? There isn't a shred of evidence of how that came about.
Hang on with me here and trace the chronological progression from the fall of 2010 through 2011 and into 2012 and then something happened in August 2012 regarding the Mandela effect. Then nothing in 2013 until the end of 2013 when there was a beginning of significant interest in searches. Here I rely as far as humanly possible and with great reservation upon Google trend searches but I admit it as evidence to be taken under caution.
So according to that data, in December of 2013, now we're going like more than three years after MandelaEffect.com was founded, there was a blip of interest and then in February through October of 2014, interest grew and if you go to MandelaEffect.com right now, Fiona Broome's site, you will find that there are entries in a kind of forum discussion format for a number of cases of the Mandela Effect. But the earliest entry found on her current website is from March 2014.
So that's about three and a half years since the site was founded. Well, what happened in the first three and a half years? When you come down to March 2014, where there is now evidence on her site of discussion of particular cases, you find that many, many different cases are being discussed. Berenstain Bears, movie dialogue, product name changes, logo changes and everything.
How did all of this come into play as subject matter under the category of the Mandela Effect when the Mandela Effect was initially restricted to a simple case of discrepancies in memory about when someone died. I mean, I'll bet some of you can't even remember when certain family members died. You might remember the year, you might not remember the month. And nothing could be easier than to mistake the death date of some celebrity or historical person.
And yet that case, which I call the case sui generis, sui generis, the case that stands in a category by itself defined the Mandela effect. But where did all these other effects come in? How do you jump from wondering, if you're remembering correctly, when Ella Fitzgerald died to changes in film dialogue and in the logos of cars and in the names of breakfast cereals and Looney Tunes. How do you get from there to there?
Well, somehow the Mandela Effect phenomenon evolved, developed, sort of like a magnet, it attracted different cases and there was presumably a big discussion that went on for three and a half years of which, as far as I can tell, there is not one single bit of evidence.
And I point your snoopy noses to this interesting detail which has a note 2 connected to it. And that is the detail about the article on the wood between worlds, which was published in August 2012.
So there was an article on the Mandela Effect published in August 2012 which again is almost two years after September 2010. And there's something about this article that really jumped out at me and struck me as being, let's say, odd, let's say, suspicious, let's say, not exactly believable, okay, first I want you to look at note 1) There I've shown the domain registration of MandelaEffect.com, but I've also added a commentary that goes like this.
If the decisive conversation happened at that event, either in 2009 or 2010, then when did people begin reporting other categories of Mandela effects? And how did they come to associate, for instance, say someone was watching Forrest Gump and they saw the change. Life was like a box of chocolates. Life is like a box of chocolates.
Say that just happened to someone and they went on Facebook or they went on the Internet and they said, oh, this is really weird. I can't understand this and my friends remember it one way and I remember it another way. When did instances like that coming out of the real experience of people in real time get to be associated with Fiona Broome's meme? How did her meme develop and amplify into the Mandela Effect?
There is no record of this. So presumably, there was a body of evidence on her website, okay? Presumably. Viewers may have shared anecdotes and informal theories. Discussions may have ranged from chatty conversations to speculation based on data collected, people trading examples.
And according to Fiona Broome, the topic abruptly reached critical mass around 2015. Well, that's on the timeline and you'll note as well that 2015 summer or August of 2015 was a really significant moment in terms of the GNE because that's the moment that the planet Jupiter shifted into the virgin.
And presumably August of 2015 was the moment when the Mandela effect reached a kind of critical mass and the data shows that the subject of Berenstain Bears attracted great interest at that time. That's mid-2015. Now fast forward to mid-2016 and Fiona Broom does something rather odd.
She wrote that at that time some questions were raised about comments on her site. What does this mean? I mean, what were the comments on her site previous to 2016? Previous to 2014? Going back to 2010. No evidence.
In addition, she said on her blog in August of 2016 that moderating those comments required six or more hours per day and that the Reddit community had taken over the subject and there were great forums for related discussions.
So, “Fiona Broome, I closed this site to new comments”. So she did this a year ago. Now, compare that to the blog entry of the year 2012, which is one of the first pieces of internet evidence concerning discussion and theory of the Mandela Effect. The author, who's called Rhys, of the site or blog The Wood Between Worlds, added this note to an article proposing parallel universe theory to explain Berenstain-Berenstain pairs. Quote, this post has gotten a lot of attention in recent months.
I've seen a lot of what the internet has to say about the incident and have written a post trying to combine a lot of the wisdom from other forums including photographic evidences in a summary post. I suggest that those curious check it out and especially the links included here. Due to some limitations to Blogger, new comments do not seem to be displaying correctly. So he says, new comments on the Mandela effect are not displaying correctly on his site. And four years later, she says that some questions were raised about the comment on her site, comments on her site. Hmm.
Strangely, kind of similar remarks. So, if your comment does not appear here, blah blah blah, I apologize for this and so forth and so on. I am shutting down comments on this post to prevent further confusion.
So, here's a blogger picking up the Mandela effect case in 2012, one of the earliest instances, although there's still very little evidence on search trends that people are pursuing it to any degree and he shuts down comments and then four years later Fiona Broome shuts down comments.
So today you find comments on MandelaEffect.com but you don't find Fiona Broome saying much about the Mandela Effect. She's talking about parallel universes, paranormal phenomena, ghosts and the sorts of things that typically belong to the genre of a self-defined psychic and witch. Remember that I pointed out that her YouTube channel only has two videos and something like 97 subscribers and there's nothing on it about the Mandela Effect.
Now let's sit back and think for a moment. Let's consider this body of evidence so far. Suppose that the legend of Fiona Broome discovering the Mandela effect through a conversation at Dragon Con is true. Wouldn't you think it would be consistent with that event for her to develop something to which her name is attached?
Currently, let's presume that there's a fair amount of interest in the Mandela Effect here and there in the English-speaking world. There are many channels discussing it. There are articles. CNN just came out with a piece on the Mandela Effect, for the first time in the mainstream media like that, okay?
So there's some kind of broad interest and if you were the individual who was at the source of this phenomenon and you had originated the term so that your name was eternally associated with that phenomenon, wouldn't you promote yourself?
In that vein, wouldn't you go on YouTube and do interviews about the Mandela Effect and how you discovered it and how you developed it? Wouldn't you recount in your own words, not in one written paragraph that seems to appear everywhere, duplicated, cut and pasted, but wouldn't you be happy to say and explain in your own words, oh yeah, it just started out with Nelson Mandela, and then, well, the first time that I realized that it was a larger effect that involved other kind of anomalies, such as changes in the dialogue of films and the title of films, you know, like Interview with a Vampire, Interview with the Vampire, the first time I noticed that, well that was when this happened and so and so contacted me.
Wouldn't you be doing that? And wouldn't you be building a sort of internet career and calling out of the phenomenon that you discovered? Well, maybe Fiona Broome is just an individual who doesn't care to do that. And without being able to question her directly, I can't speculate. But I, just like you, can sit back on my heels and put my Snoopy in the air and say, this doesn't wash. It doesn't hang together.
The story of how the Mandela Effect was named does not align with how it developed. In fact, I find no evidence that shows how it developed. I mean, just think of three prominent cases. Bernstein bears, interview with a vampire. And if you build it, he will come. If you build it, they will come. Field of dreams. Just think of these three instances.
When did those three instances come up for discussion in association with the initial case? Bear in mind again, as you're scrutinizing the evidence here, that the initial crime in this case concerns a mistaking of the death of an historical person. Now that too, let's go back and look at that clue.
Let's go back and look at the legend. In the legend of Fiona Broome, remember, using that word in a cautionary sense, a la John le Carré, it says, the narrative says, that the people at DragonCon in 2009 or 2010 were perplexed because they had different memories of when Nelson Mandela died.
Well, that can't be true. That in itself can't be true. That piece of evidence is spurious. It's been planted. It's false evidence. How do I know?
Well, I'm presuming that the characters at Dragon Con, hanging around in the corridors and in the auditoriums and the cafes and the bars, all had iPods, iPads, they all had computers, they all could immediately go on the internet and find out in the first two minutes of the conversation that Nelson Mandela was alive in 2010.
So how could they be having a discussion of whether he had died then or at a later time? It would have been the easiest thing in the world and the most natural thing to do to go into the handheld device and say hey look Mandela is live he's visiting the Pope today you know they're playing bingo together with a number of charming young children and here's the evidence and he didn't die until three years later so how could there be a confusion about the date of his death you see there is something really off about this whole story, isn't there?
And in my opinion, I don't know, you decide for yourself. Well, in my opinion, the more you look at it, the more closely you look at it, the more phony it becomes. And it starts to have the look of a psyop, it starts to have the look of a setup. But what kind of setup is it? What kind of psyop could have been planned or implemented by having Fiona broom introduce a meme that later developed in a particular manner apparently completely independent of her.
I mean today I find it, I do find it suspicious that even today she doesn't appear to take a great interest in the Mandela Effect anymore. There's mention of it on the current entries of her blog mandelaeffect.com. But she's all over the place with ghost stories and hauntings and exorcisms and all kinds of new age make-believe parallel universe formulas and speculations, you know, speculations about the Mandela effect.
But investigation of actual cases and discussion with people of actual cases is a relatively small component in what she's doing. Well how can that be? It's as if she was cut out of the action once the meme was launched.
Now I advise you to look closely at that term cut out. That's a term from espionage. There are two terms from the jargon of espionage of the three-letter agencies that came up as I was in the process of producing this memo, Operation Broomstick. The terms patsy and the terms cut out.
Everyone knows what a patsy is. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. I say that name with great respect and even with some affection as I consider him to be a great American hero. And he even said so. So he said, I'm just a patsy, meaning he was blamed for something that he didn't do. That is a very great fact.
Now the term cut-out might be less well known to you. It's a standard term in psyops and black ops of the three-letter agencies. In fact, there's a fascinating story about the cut-out provided to Lee Harvey Oswald. It's a little known story.
There's an hour and a half meticulously researched lecture about it on the internet. It's called Oswald's Last Phone Call. This story tells the incident in which Oswald, the evening before he was murdered by Jack Ruby, made, I believe, two phone calls to a certain number and a certain person. And these calls actually led to nothing. They were dead ends.
I mean apparently to Oswald these calls must have been very important and he must have been calling someone who he believed to be crucial to his mission and someone who could know what had happened to him and someone who could get him out of this mess where he had been framed for assassinating the president.
However, sadly, tragically, upon investigation it turns out that the individual he called was a sort of crazy person. It was a man who had worked in the three-letter agencies or he had been in that genre at some time in his life but he had suffered in more recent times of serious health problems and possibly even mental instability.
So Lee Harvey Oswald calls this person as if reaching out to someone who can make a difference and someone who will know who he is and what's happening to him and it proves to be a complete dead end. That is what is called a cut out.
Oswald was given a cut out. He was told that that was a person to contact in case of emergency. If things went wrong, that individual would set everything right. But as a matter of fact, that individual was an incompetent character who had no play whatsoever in the nefarious conspiracy in which Lee Harvey Oswald was trapped.
Do you see the beauty of that story? Well, it's my conclusion and again this is tentative because there's not enough evidence here to be firmly conclusive. But it's my conclusion that we have a unique instance here in which someone launched a psyop using Fiona Broom. And she served both as the patsy to launch the meme of the Mandela effect, but she also serves currently as the cutout. What do I mean by that?
Well, I mean, it's very unusual that an agent or someone who is handled by an agency, an asset, she's just an asset, she's not an agent, right? She's an asset of the people who intended for the Mandela effect to be a psyop. And as an asset, she is both the stooge or Patsy who created the event. She didn't really create it.
I'm suspecting that it was fed to her. And second, she's the cutout. Because when you go to her today, it's a dead end. You don't learn anything about how the Mandela effect really developed into what it is today. And she herself doesn't appear to be exploiting that meme and using it to be famous, to give interviews, to write books, to be well known, to be celebrated. Why not?
Because she's a cutout like the man that Lee Harvey Oswald called on the last evening of his life. All right, well so far so good. I'm coming up on an hour so I'm going to do the remainder of this talk on Operation Broomstick in a second part. But for right now to round it off, let's go back to the chronology.
Remember that from 2010, presumably when the effect was identified and named in one particular limited category, all the way through to 2015, five solid years, September of 2015, trend search shows that there's not a great deal of interest in the Mandela Effect. It doesn't really go viral, if you want to call it that, until September of 2015.
And by the way, Jupiter shifted into the head of the Virgin, into the constellation of the Virgin, in August of 2015. There's a correlation there between the celestial intel that I'm occasionally using in this investigation and the development of this phenomenon.
So, apart from that article of August 2012 in which the blogger curiously says that there's a problem with comments being recorded and I'm shutting down comments. Well, is that a cover story for the fact that there really isn't any material to show? I find that very suspicious.
I also find it suspicious that Fiona Broome, four years later, does exactly the same thing. She shuts out the comments and there's no record of any comment earlier than March 2014. So it isn't, in any case, it isn't until the fall of 2015 that you see a cumulative volume of interest in the Mandela effects and searching for the various effects which are now numerous and diverse in nature.
And we come ahead into 2016, and there's a very large spike in June of 2016, and this is when biblical scripture changes are widely discussed. They come up at the top of the list, extremely controversial, and all the Christians, of course, go into tremendous panic, and they're claiming that Satan is the cause of the Mandela effect, or it's CERN, or CERN is using Satan, or CERN is a satanic machine.
This is all building up and bubbling over just a year ago, June of 2016. Note there, there's a significant piece of celestial intel. The moment when Jupiter was conjunct the north lunar node. That was a time when that corresponds to a spike in the Mandela effect.
So I'm actually drawing parallels between celestial intel and events on the internet. August 2016, again a massive spike. Now CERN begins to be closely associated and someone is spreading around the rumor or the claim that someone at CERN, some scientist, is a whistleblower explaining to the world that CERN is responsible for the Mandela effect. That's also extremely suspicious.
Where does the proof, well it's a claim and a proof, right? Where does the claim that CERN is producing the Mandela effect come from? Oh, it comes from a whistleblower at CERN. Does it really? Who's reporting the crime? Is the person who's reporting the crime involved in the cover-up of the crime? Involved in disinformation? Involved in a deceit around the crime? You see?
Then in August of last year, there's a significant article called a significant YouTube upload called “Conspiracy Theory the Mandela Effect” and that got 4 million views the last time I looked and 71,000 comments.
So okay, millions of people are taking a look at the Mandela Effect. How many of those 4 million are following it? How many feel that they are affected? How many want to find out what's behind it? It's a much smaller number than the 4 million, but it is an impressive number.
Also, it's notable that Mother Teresa searches, with the two spellings of Teresa, also peak during that time, and there is a Telegraph article, that's a British newspaper, in September of 2016. But from October and November of 2016 onward, when the last large spike can be detected in Google trend searches, well, interest in the Mandela Effect appears to be declining.
And I'll talk more about that possibility in part 2 of this study of Operation Broomstick. So what do I mean by Operation Broomstick, after all?
Well, I'm proposing, I'm suggesting that Fiona Broom was a dupe and an asset, an unwitting asset, probably, for some agency who wanted to perpetrate a psyop through the Mandela effect. And I'm calling that psyop Operation Broomstick. Do you get my drift?
So here at the end of the first hour, getting back to you after a lapse of six weeks, and thank you for your patience and determination, here I've just come to the point where I've given you enough background to put this on the table. What was Operation Broomstick?
What was the intended psyop associated with the introduction of the Mandela Effect? And who intended it? Who set it up? And what were their objectives? What was the purpose of Operation Broomstick if such an event did really exist? And secondly, what can it possibly mean that the psyop presumed, okay, the presumed psyop was intercepted?
How does that notion set with you? Does that tickle your imagination? Does that, you know, intrigue you? The very idea of a psyop, a psychological operation which is deliberately constructed and deployed in the world for a certain objective, could be intercepted and turned to a different purpose.
I mean, have you ever heard anything like that before? Maybe I'm overlooking something here. I often overlook the obvious. But I've thought long and hard and I can't think of any instance in which I know of a psyop that was actually hijacked and turned into something it was not intended to be.
But I submit to you, my faithful team, I submit to you that this is exactly the case with the Mandela effect. That what it was originally intended to be, and I'll start off next time by talking about that, did not play out in the way that it was foreseen due to the fact that a humanly constructed psyop was intercepted by a superhuman intelligence and the original psyop was subverted to another purpose.
So the actual purpose behind the Mandela effect, behind the phenomenon that we are investigating can be shown to originate in a superhuman field of intelligence. The Mandela effect is both the evidence and instrument of Sophia's correction, the correction of the Aeonic mother reaching now to the human species, which she designed. She knows how to reach your mind because she designed your mind and she knows how your mind works, although she doesn't know everything that you're going to do based on what happens in your mind.
But what she has done, I contend, and this is conclusive, what she has done is to bring into the humanly intended psyop not only an intervening force but a contravening force that turns that psyop into an event it was never intended to be. And that is what we are seeing today.
That is what involves you in the Mandela effect. That realization, that truth that you are constructing with me in the course of this investigation enables you to do something with the Mandela Effect and not merely to think about it.
To do and not merely to think.
So on that note, and I'm fairly certain I'm not singing out of tune here, I'll leave you as usual and until the next time, may your attention be rewarded by the truth.