From The Magic Agent
by Jon Rappoport
July 29, 2017
This is an excerpt from my book, The Magic Agent. I present it for two reasons. One, it concerns a breach in the space-time construct. And two, it imparts the flavor of a future agency at work, an agency with layers of complexity that functions as a labyrinth. Is this maze an attempt to confuse the reader? No. Although there are elements he may not understand, there is enough “sense” to let him through the door into a future investigation that is underway. Here it is:
The Tribunal date was set by the court. February 6, 2052. No witnesses would be allowed. The same five people would sit in a suite on the top floor of the Randall Building, in the Wilshire District of Los Angeles. Gray and Gregory would present their evidence. The judges would make a ruling. In what manner they would rule was also predetermined. They would recommend, to the Attorney General of the United States, and through him to the president, what action, if any, should be taken. So although numbers one through three were judges, in this case they had been conscripted by the Executive Branch. They were not precisely an investigative task force. They certainly were not independent prosecutors. They were considering one slab of evidence that had been gathered by two lawyers who worked for the US Department of Justice. And whatever evidence and opinion those lawyers offered, there would be no opposing side. The Judges would deliberate and have complete control over the outcome.
November 6, 2053
After a number of delays, the Tribunal opened session.
Gregory and Gray sat behind a large table. Thirty feet in front of them, on a raised platform brought in for the occasion, the three judges now sat in high-backed chairs, and they were now wearing black robes.
Judge One said, “This Tribunal is in session. The proceedings will be automatically recorded through the auspices of the US Attorney General’s office.”
Gray, in her Captain’s uniform, rose and made a brief opening statement. She slathered sincerity on like grease.
“Your Honors, we are here to determine whether there has been a breach in the space-time continuum. This is clearly a question of National Security. Many explanations have been given for the degeneration of moral values across this land. Although some of the proposed causes are undoubtedly relevant, it is our task to examine a more comprehensive possibility. Many Americans have had troubling experiences they cannot explain. What is the source of those experiences? Why do citizens suddenly find themselves in a web of mysterious circumstances? Why are there breaks in the very fabric of their lives? Why has loyalty to the great traditions faltered? We will present evidence that impinges on all these questions. We will present it in great detail, so that you will be equipped to render a decision. We hope this Tribunal will make a contribution to the re-establishing of order in America. The fundamental order that once bound us all in a community of shared principle. On that order we can build, anew, common security, we can extend safety, and we can again develop authentic pride, as shameful behaviors of all descriptions hopefully dissipate and float away on the tides of a forgotten era.”
Gray sat down.
Gregory was surprised she had taken “archetypal Indiana” that far. He rose.
“Your Honors, our entire presentation will follow a simple direction. We will offer documents to the court. Captain Gray and I will introduce each document, and after you view it, if it please the court, we will answer any questions you put to us.”
Judge One nodded. “Proceed, Mr. Gregory.”
“Your Honors,” Gregory said, “Document One comes in five parts. First, you will see a conversation that took place in a residence in Georgetown, on the evening of May 27, 2007. The old 2007. The participants were employees of the Department of Defense. This conversation was covertly recorded by the Central Intelligence Agency. As we explained in the hearing, CIA historians have vetted the recording and attested to its authenticity.”
Judge Two said, “This is the conversation about Project 360.”
“Yes, Your Honor. Then you will see the subject of Project 360, a man named Frank Palmer. Remarkably, you will see a section of his life. From his own point of view. Following that, we return to a short conversation in Georgetown, because the men in that room have just witnessed the very same section of Palmer’s life. They react to the experience. Very strongly. Then we will see a meeting between one of the Georgetown men and his superior at the Pentagon. This was also recorded, covertly, by the CIA domestic tracking unit. Finally, we will view a brief section of Palmer’s life, again from his own point of view, that takes place beyond the scope of Project 360. It was covertly recorded by TransV Studios, using its proprietary technology.”
Judge Three said, “So somehow this man Palmer’s life was put under two separate microscopes. 360 and TransV.”
“Correct. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but the threads will become clear to you as you watch the footage.”
“I hope so,” Judge Three said.
“I’m confused,” Judge Two said. “We are going to watch a piece of a man’s life. A man who was spied on. And yet we are actually watching that piece of Palmer’s life from his own point of view.”
“Yes, sir.”
“How in the world is that possible?”
“The technologies employed made it possible.”
“I’m not aware any such technologies exist.”
“Both the Pentagon and TransV state that it does.”
“It’s the same technology?”
“Not exactly, sir. But the same surveillance result is achieved: experiencing events from the subject’s own point of view.”
“You are basing your case on this?”
“We brought that up in the hearing, Your Honor.”
“So you did. But it seems to me this is going around the block to prove your point. You’re approaching the question of whether the space-time continuum has been breached, and in order to do so, you’re offering films. It’s tenuous.”
“It’s the best way to discover people’s raw experience of time.”
“I wonder about that.”
“If we accept that these technologies are real, then we are on solid ground.”
“Wishing does not make it so, Mr. Gregory. Both the Pentagon and TransV state their confidence in their own methods, but what else would you expect of them?”
“With all due respect, Your Honor, we settled this question of admissibility at the hearing.”
“I have had further thoughts since then.”
“All we’re asking is that you view this footage. We are prepared to answer any questions you have afterwards.”
“Yes, Mr. Gregory, but once you get a green light from us, it’s a done deal, so to speak. We admit, to a degree, that what you are showing us is real.”
“Not at all, sir. We are certainly willing to take up that question.”
“But not now.”
“We would, of course, prefer to introduce the evidence and then argue its merits.”
“Well, Mr. Gregory, that’s where we are. I want some further justification before I subject myself to your film.”
“May I ask why, Your Honor?”
“Because I find it unbelievable that a person or group can make a film about another person in the way you describe. It’s like saying you can turn a camera on me, as I sit here, and come out with a product that shows my moment-by-moment response to, well, reality. From my own perspective. That sounds like some sort of invasive mental surgery.”
“I understand the dilemma, sir. And yet I believe your experience of the film will answer your questions. It’s rather like reading a review of a movie. Whatever the critic says, finally the reader has to go into the theater and see it for himself.”
Gray said, “One additional point, Your Honors. In the hearing, we presented affidavits from several persons who have experienced the TransV and 360 technologies. They claim they were, in fact, experiencing reality from the point of view depicted by the technology.”
Judge Two said, “Yes. They claim. But is that what we have to go on?”
“To a degree, yes,” Gray said. “The whole area of the subjective is fraught with problems. I think, however, we’ve established that it is the only doorway into the study of Time and what has happened to it.”
“Well, “ Judge Two said, “if you brought us first-person written accounts from individuals, I think we’d be better off. Instead, we’re being asked to watch something I find, by definition, to be incomprehensible.”
“Your Honor,” Gray said, “it will take you a few hours to view the first document. Mr. Gregory and I are certainly not saying we know it is ironclad. No one is saying that. We are only asking the court’s indulgence for that brief period of time.”
“And if we decide it’s rubbish?”
“Mr. Gregory and I will then speak to that.”
Judge Two glanced at his colleagues. They did not meet his eyes.
“Let me bring up another point,” he said. “In the hearing, you stated, if I remember correctly, that you had stripped the 360 presentation of its emotional impact. You wanted to spare us suffering. I assume you’ve also stripped the same emotional impact from the TransV technology. Explain that, please.”
“Yes, sir,” Gray said. “People who viewed the full version of 360 experienced radical symptoms. They went unconscious. They were terrified. Not all of them. Some of them.”
“And you wanted to leave us able to continue to deliberate.”
Gray smiled. “Yes, sir.”
“But then we would not have the complete experience.”
“Correct.”
“I’ll make a devil’s bargain with you,” Judge Two said. “I’ll allow this document in as evidence if I can obtain the full effect.”
“Excuse me?”
“I believe I was clear.”
“Sorry, sir. You want to experience the full effect. On that basis only, you would you permit us to introduce this document.”
“Very good, Captain Gray.”
“Done,” Gray said.
“Well?” Judge Two said, looking at his colleagues.
The two judges and Gregory and Gray realized that, for whatever reason, this was what Judge Two was after. He was essentially telling his colleagues on the platform that he would make trouble the rest of the way if he couldn’t get what he wanted.
“You have the original version of Document One?” Judge Three said.
“We do,” Gray said.
Judge One sighed. “Then show it. Let’s get on with it. And give us all five parts, without interruption. We’ll ask our questions at the end.”
The lights dimmed in the room.
“Your Honors,” Gregory said, “This is DOCUMENT ONE.”
Out of the corner of his eye, Gregory saw Judge Two smile. He heard the Judge say, “A movie of someone else’s life from his own point of view. I’ve never heard of such a thing. And this, to adjudicate if time has been breached. We must be crazy. But life is short. So let us be stimulated.”
A wild card. But maybe every person in the room was a wild card.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Outside the Reality Machine 