Liquor... there's a term. Perhaps we have forgotten but before fish and chips (1860) in England the national fast food was pie and mash (1800). Its served with liquor. Here's a write up + excerpt:
Pie and Mash | The history of London pie mash and liquor
Anyway, I reckon liquor == gravy. Perhaps gravy made from the blood of the animal.
"As long as liquor is in him was a Middle English expression, "as long as he is alive," that is, "as long as he has a drop of blood left.""
Gosh - does that tie up a few loose ends?
Oh yes, nice catches! Dismissed as stories and aphorisms. But only so long as there is no physical evidence.
Oracle
posted about Paracelsus claiming blood was good to drink. And 'liquor' may be what
Selenadia described as fermented, ionised blood. Unfortunately, I couldn't make enough sense of the English translation to understand how the ionisation bit was done. Or why.
I used 'chewmans' as a pun to soften up on the repeated use of terms like 'edible humans', rather than as a word specificly for fermented blood.
Thanks. That post was a lot of work. Mostly spent quarrying information, though the toughest part was refining it; cutting the drafts right down until presentable. All very enjoyable to do. But discussion of its many implications had to be left out. Five of them:
- Staveley's history. And proximity to a place symbolically associated with baton-wielding horse-riders.
- How did the iron-ore get into these rocks in the first place?
- The New Forest (Google Maps), (Google Streetview), (OpenStreetMap), (Flickr images). Its story always felt unlikely. Now, perhaps we have an adult explanation for it?
- Assuming the processing equipment moved until the work was completed, there would have been a final place for processing. Possibly where the kit was dismantled or destroyed. Where? I'd investigate just beyond the north-west edge of the Brecks. Not far from Narborough bone mill (Google Maps), (Google Streetview), (OpenStreetMap), (Flickr images).
- Perhaps the quarrying conjecture gives us clues about why the south-eastern fen boundary coincides with hills on the eastern coast of the Wash. Perhaps quarrying was interrupted. See the BGS 'superficial geology' map in the 'English Civil War'-focused post-104000.
"Or was there ever a... grand plan?" Source: Talking Landscapes: The Fens
What a find re the big bone. 'Osteoarcheologist' - Margaret Cox - needs a knock on her head with it.. Why can't she say what she sees?!
Proving my suspicions re her well-trained intellect, she then pops up to say there is a 'health and safety' issue because of the 'body liquor' from a body that's been in a coffin they think has been buried for 2000 years! Ludicrous!
Yeah, I agree this dissonant moment - and others in that show - are significant. Both in terms of what the presenters say, and what they do. And, just as importantly, for how you react. Here's a really good example from the same Time Team 'Ancaster' show:
It's just body-talk. Source: Time Team 'Ancaster' S09 Ep02
Shows often include visual humour. But I don't think her big shrug is a joke or an accident. Nor the fade-out that follows it. Their editing, not mine. I suspect the fade-out was a conscious editing decision, designed to give viewers time to let her body language sink in. A straight cut to the next scene would not have allowed that.
IIRC, about 60% of British skeletons are found 'disarticulated' or in 'disarray'. In this scene, the skeletons are disarticulated and mixed with animal bones. I can think of two life outcomes likely to produce that result:
- Encountering catastrophe
- Becoming lunch
But look at the tray of bones containing the jaw at the start of the clip. Look at the front of the tray in that scene before you play it. It's a bit obscured by the player controls. We already know there is a size 'dissonance'. But remember Mark Passio's presentation in
your post-104651? His presentation included a slide to contrast the strength of primate bones with thin-walled human bones...
This show was assembled with care. It sows seeds and uses careful editing to help the seeds settle into place
Here's another example of what I think is Time Team sowing seeds. IIRC, we touched on this video shot in SH 1.0:
Coastal rock cut. Source: Time Team: Britain's Drowned World
I don't know how to add highlight circles to mp4 clips yet. You'll have to look carefully for the large saw-cut gradually revealed before the scene ends. This shot was repeated twice, possibly three times, in that episode. Ostensibly for the visual pretties, there being no other overt explanation for it. You may see other saw cuts if you look carefully.
One day, in some brains, the seeds sown in these shows may find conditions are suitable for germination. I think
Michael Portillo's Great Railway Journeys series are full of this too, though it is less obvious. I'm sure
Vance Packard would approve of both shows.
But let's just assume the above is pure speculation. I mean: seriously, why would anyone conspire to educate us via enhanced dissonance?
So then, let's turn to the most important aspect: how you reacted. Your sense of exasperation at Dr Cox's statement...
Seeing the cognitive dissonance is one thing; feeling traces of exasperation at it is another. Perhaps the trace of exasperation is caused by a germinating seed pushing for growing room in the otherwise well-tended, orderly soil of your mind.
From frown to lotus blossom. Source: I, Pet Goat II, 2012
Perhaps the girl's frown shows her exasperation when her trust in The Narrative begins to break down. The sequence may show her loss of trust, followed by loss of loyalty as she discards the apple of 'received wisdom'. I would guess any genuine user of this board is well into the germination stage (germination being possibly more analogous to becoming a level 101 conspiracy theorist). So, pursuing the germination analogy, maybe your exasperation is caused by your own wisdom coming into blossom and searching for light. That is, looking for integrity from expert speakers and respect from them for your ability to think.
OK, let's look at a more conventional explanation. Let's play with the idea that Dr Cox has herself been put into the same position this girl is in but has decided to play along with the narrative.
Often discussed in the Covid and forged document threads - though not often named - is 'trust'. Trust, and what occurs as trust breaks down. I don't think the breakdown is very simple at all. How would Dr Cox's break-up with the system look as her trust unravelled?
Consider the 'Exalting Fabricant in the Abbatoir' scene:
"Welcome! Take a seat!". Source: Cloud Atlas, 2012
And consider this scene:
"What is that for?" Source: No Country for Old Men, 2007
Ask yourself: does the fabricant trust the people who are managing her?
In the second clip, does the man trust the 'cop'?
The second clip shows us a sequence where trust is breaking down. That is why the driver asks: "What is that for?" He suspects its purpose is something directed at him. But it remains unexplained and is beyond his own capacity to figure out in the time he has. We see him becoming suspicious.
But why don't we see an abrupt shift to 'Flight'? Why does he comply right up to the very end, as the situation created by 'Authority' becomes increasingly unusual?
I suggest it is because his
loyalty loop is in play.
Summarised, two kinds of vulnerability are being demonstrated:
- Clip 1: Misplaced trust
- Clip 2: Breakdown of trust, accompanied by a high-contrast (AKA low information-density) situation, which triggers 'the loyalty loop'.
As you can imagine, I've been paying attention to possible loyalty loops since they came up in the thread (and since black and white authority flagging came up in
the Clown thread). I'm fairly sure loyalty loops are more likely to operate (or 'trip') when the human is faced with stark contrasts. Ranging from colour contrasts (black and white, or blue and yellow) to statements framing the situation as "It's us or them". Or in this case: "Comply."
Were the car driver even given a fake explanation of the matador (it's an abattoir's cattle stunning tool), the situation would become nuanced. He could weigh the explanation and make a judgement call. But absent any explanation, he simply complies. It's the absence of information that trips his loyalty loop. In a high-contrast situation - comply or run - his loyalty loop trips in and offers him 'comply' as the least-risk choice.
Instead of requiring a complex password or special powers, you simply need to:
- signal 'authority' (preferably augmented with contrasting colours), then
- reduce the information available
This combination triggers 'the loyalty loop' and you achieve the compliance you want.
Very elegant. The loyalty loop's design is efficient, pragmatic and, to me, looks programmatic. It resembles a deliberately designed vulnerability. In programmer's jargon - a 'back-door'.
This suggests to me that Dr Cox is in an unstressed, low-contrast position. Either she:
- doesn't realise, or
- does realise and has had time to assess the nuances of her situation. And concluded the rewards are worth playing along for.
The rewards would be the money, the glamour, the fame of having her motives analysed on boards populated only by well-paid Information Operations staff and a mica-thin slice of the narratively-contaminated.
It seems I've come back to my first conjecture. Cox knows the presentation is dissonant. In which case, there are reasons for the dissonance and her co-operation with its production. Perhaps it's all about achieving this moment in human development:
Warning: this audio is loud. Source: 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968
Given the expense of sowing these 'seeds of dissonance', logic tells us 'germination' and 'dissonance development' will be monitored.
Without being told where monitoring is located, could 'dissonants' find it if they looked?
Possibly. Possibly by watching body language.
What should be present but isn't, is often very significant. What was present, but no longer is, is also often very significant. Iron-bearing sandstone and iron-free sand...
I paid
more attention to the 'quarried Wash' conjecture after noticing
earlier evidence had 'become unavailable'.
Possibly, the content's disappearance was body language.
Previously publicly-visible content from
post-102939 in the Clowns thread has also 'become unavailable':
Body language. Source: Your local monitoring team
Just to be clear, that content was hosted on - and removed from - Odysee's servers, not Stolen History.net's servers.
- What might need to be hidden?
- Why?
- By whom?
- What protocols would need to be in place to catch and communicate inconvenient interpretations of publicly-available material?
- What protocols would need to be in place to continuously improve the effectiveness of existing protocols?
- What do time delays between likely awareness and consequent action tell us about routes and boundaries within the communicating institutions?
- Etc, etc, usw, usw.
The Internet is full of conversation. It is also full of body language.
The body language is often louder than the conversation.
Warning: this audio is quiet. Source: Next, 2007