In the second post of this series artist Celeste Roberge was featured (Fig. 1).
What if the rocks contained in the wired containment entities she uses were composed of Romania’s Enigmatic Trovants?
One response to that question might be "how do we know that they are not Trovants?", but perhaps a more fitting response might be a discussion of emergence of the often used containment concepts of "over the line", "over the top", and/or "out of bounds".
Notice that we are moving into the realm of "hidden in plain sight", in that, we are using a portion of our cultural nomenclature that has itself been shaped by the concept of boundaries composed of "lines" emerging from a subconscious geometry.
Yes, now I have injected intellectual, cognitive, and shall we say cultural containment entities into the containment entity "mystery".
But again, like the unseen gravity containment entity, we generally don't focus on the entity itself, instead we focus on what the containment entity "shapes".
Even our intellectual, emotional, political, religious, and scientific makeup is shaped by containment entities.
But I digress.
(We have a proclivity to focus on the shape while ignoring the source of the shape.)
Brainy Containment Entities
II. The Most Abundant Containment Entity Is ...
In a previous post we noted that the most abundant component of atoms is space (Just How Small Is An Atom).
Even the containment entity "gravity", which "shapes" planets, stars, and galaxies, exists within the most abundant containment entity "SPACE".
Invisible, ubiquitous, and enigmatic, "space" is all around and within "everything".
III. Closing Comments
So, let's not bicker, instead let's make our contemplation even more enigmatic by asking "does a containment entity for a non-living entity, such as a Trovant, have to be non-living, and does a containment entity for a living entity have to be alive?"
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
I will continue the study of their depositions and interview documents with a focus on words used in those documents (like I did with the Final Report in the first post of this series).
II. Amendments Galore
In this series, involving a somewhat unique type of "the insurrection happened like this" document, I began with a focus on the words used in various documents.
It started with the Final Report document, and today I am intensifying that focus, by providing appendices of word use in about 250 depositions and/or interviews (Appendix 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
III. Those Who Took The Fifth
I suspect that to some folks "who took the Fifth" will be the most intriguing subject, because that subject has a special rather than a general focus.
A lot of the previous administration officials took the Fifth Amendment's protection (which was made for those who do not wish to incriminate themselves; which is cool, but note that some folks think it is best to avoid self incrimination by not committing crimes.)
Anyway, the following section lists the names of the individuals who "took the Fifth" rather than disclose information which the January 6 members were interested in.
The said section contains lists of the page numbers in their depositions where the questions "they could not answer" are recorded (for our perusal).
This type of focus is a tactic used by investigators in many fields.
I am giving it to you for free, all the while hoping that you will enjoy your gift.
Moving on, here is some of that "Fifth dimension" data that Dredd Blog dug up for "youse guys" and "y'all":
Fifth Amendment Assertion Events By The Following People During The January 6 Committee Interviews and/or DepositionsLegend:
The (numbers in parentheses) following the name of the person, refer to the deposition link & date. Thereafter, the list of numbers followed by a comma refer to page numbers in their deposition/interview where they asserted the Fifth Amendment.
"Dredd, why is this information useful?" you may be wondering, so, ponder this:
"While some of the potential outcomes described above represent worst
case-scenarios, the key takeaway is that in the corporate fraud context,
pleading the Fifth is rarely a freebie and more often than not, it
entails increased exposure on several fronts. Those costs usually
outweigh the potential benefits for corporations, even if not for their
senior executives in the prosecutorial crosshairs."
(The Perils of Pleading the Fifth...). Yes, but "the prosecutorial crosshairs" are one consideration, but there are also the investigatorial crosshairs to consider.
I won't elaborate further, except to say "there is nothing wrong with money" HOWEVER, don't forget the mantra of investigators: "follow the money".
So, let me close by saying (to all of my fellow investigators) "follow the Fifth".
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.