The thing is that the world has changed.
Before cryptos, everyone who wanted for honest money was usually in the gold-standard corner.
After cryptos, gold is not even a close second for that "gold-standard" that people really want.
But, how could you talk about cryptos more than a dozen years ago?
And thus, if Clif High was actually do accurate predictions, it would be just as you described them. They would change over time. After we passed 2012, there was no need for an Armageddon reset. And all those prophecies of the end times are voided.
I like Mike Hoagland's explanations of NASA better. As in there is actually 3 groups running NASA. One of them is the freemasons. And NASA puts out a lot of truth. If it was all lies, it would be so easy to just dismiss NASA, But, every lie has to have a grain of truth. And so, we are left with a problem, how would we prove anything?
If you wanted to talk cryptos ten years ago, you could have talked digital money. Lots of people were talking about digital money even 20 years ago. They had chips on cards at that point with digital money stored only on the cards..
Regarding Clif's predictions, we are in the realm of supposition now. Your logic is justifying Clif's failed results based upon potential planetary timeline changes rather than objective facts of whether he was right or wrong in his predictions. I'm just saying he's been very wrong.. and a lot.
Regarding Richard Hoagland, I have to respectfully disagree. Hoagland has been discredited so many times that you can find plenty on this if you are willing to look closely. There was a hell of lot of very ugly stories about Hoagland that came out where he was outed as scamming people, plagiarizing people, and running many more complex deceptions and cons.
I'm not sure every lie has a grain of truth. There are ways to prove things, but the question is whether you can trust the people that claim they have proved them. I just know that if I get enough lies and disinformation from any source, I don't trust them anymore. This includes NASA, Clif, and loads of other official sources. Who you can therefore trust becomes a more difficult question in a time of what is essentially universal deceit. The ability to properly discern truth from deception then becomes the key skill set that everyone needs to develop for themselves.
Actually, it is because i have a lot of experience with predictions.
Reading the future is a very iffy thing.
As in, there are futureS, not a single future.
Further, if there is an accident is someone's future, telling them to avoid that accident doesn't work, because the accident will find them, wherever they are, whatever they do. It is an energetic thing, and thus, to untie the person from the accident, you have to change what they are attracting, what they are currently being.
So, i say the earth's future has seriously changed over the last two decades. And thus, anyone who is truly doing predictions, if they are being honest, would have their story change over the last two decades.
This may be the case, and it could be a reason why Clif has been inaccurate. Whether this makes Clif more palatable as a trusted information source is a different question. I thoroughly believe that Clif has an agenda whether ever stated or not. There are too many weird coincidences and connections with Clif that can no longer be ignored from my perspective. This means that any information you get from Clif may very well be manipulated according to this agenda even if the Web bot actually exists and is feeding him somewhat accurate information - in other words, every effective trap has to have some decent bait..