# Ⅱ.Conversation with Project Camelot Founder Kerry Cassidy

In November 2010, one of our observers, John (we will erase some private or confidential information to uphold his privacy), had a significant conversation with Kerry Cassidy, the founder of the Camelot Project. Six of us observers started the ORIGIN project. Of course, we are also considering implementing it quickly because it seems impossible. When you read the following content, you will know what kind of force we are contending with: we are all at the gates of hell.

The following dialogue information may be incomplete, but to ensure the authenticity and seriousness of its core information, we have also deleted some undecrypted information. This dialogue contains much content but is essential to us, so please read it carefully.

<figure><img src="https://2233741966-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FrRcBBPzg9jE9aMZTtVnd%2Fuploads%2FDfuF3Ewqct6REvKpdWvV%2Fimage.png?alt=media&#x26;token=ab87b4f1-55f1-4849-9e0e-f57b11856554" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN: I want to thank you for coming forward with what was immediately clear to me once I'd read your written debrief, that you have some highly significant information that needs to be shared And it's our job at Project Camelot to assist you in reaching people who are aware enough to understand what you're saying, why it's essential, and to put it in perspective with other information that they may have.**</mark>

<mark style="color:red;">**To begin all of this, I wonder if you could state on the record what you are willing to share about your background, your history, and, in general, what you believe is appropriate to disclose regarding how you have positioned yourself to access the information you will be reporting.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Although the information I've shared is widely available online, it is still important to reiterate for those who may have missed it.

My initial position on this is that I'm providing you with first-hand information freely for those who wish to use it and inform themselves, and if there's any uniqueness within the information I'm sharing, this information needs to be shared.

For my part, I've spent a long time in the military and then held a senior position in the City of London, and within both institutions, I became very intimate with events that were being manufactured secretly, covertly, on behalf of a group of people -- I can't say it's on behalf of a nation or a community because it's certainly none of that -- but it's something to do with a group of people whose interests lie within themselves and what they're doing to coerce a series of events to happen.

Looking back with hindsight now, they're most successful in doing what they're doing. And time is running out for these people because of what I know.

The timeline I'm going to describe is somehow, and that's an apt title because it starts somewhere and ends somewhere, and these people are very well aware of it.

We're approaching a critical time now, which everybody's discussing. I'm very well aware of that, But the information I've brought may put some flesh on the bones for other people to consider themselves.

As for the integrity of it, what I'm going to tell you is truthful, albeit many people may think it's a perception. I'm happy with that, too. But it's been my experience, and it's that experience that I will share.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark>**&#x20;** <mark style="color:red;">**Right Now, if you could add some detail about the group you referred to, Does this group have any name they're calling themselves? Is this a group that other people reading this would recognize when cross-referencing information?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> I've had difficulty myself in trying to describe these people. I've called them like a "Band of Brothers." I've also called them an "over-government." I could also call them other names, some derogatory, and they would deserve it \[laughs]. But the best way, the most sensible way to describe these people so that people can understand what they're like, is they're like an over-government because that's what they're doing.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark>  <mark style="color:red;">**Are you talking about British people here or international people?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  The meeting I will refer to later was all British; some of them are very well-known characters who people in the United Kingdom will recognize immediately. Those who are international and might read this might have to do some research on them, but they are national figures of them.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**All right. So, it's an insider group that functions in Britain, as many American readers of this transcript would recognize by analogy -- it's like the American secret government. You're talking about politicians behind the scenes who are still very influential and linked with the police and the military. Are there also American military links in there?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Yes.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Okay. Are you aware of or heard of any discussion of any participation by church authorities, the Vatican, or any of the world's religions? Was this mentioned as part of their strategic planning for all of this?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> No, not at all, but I know the Church of England, especially, is complicit in everything that's going on, totally complicit.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark>  <mark style="color:red;">**Okay. Is this all fundamentally Masonic?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Absolutely. There's no question about that. The Masonic process vets everybody, and then they meet one another.

That's something that people need to understand. There are levels in Masonry. Most Masons don't know anything at all, and they're out there doing good work for the most part, and they get the benefit of a kind of "club," as it were. But that goes through various levels. Some call it "degrees" or whatever, but it's a Who's Who. That is -- who can be trusted, brought together, holds power, and is likely to develop more power.

And these people attract one another, and they get together because they all have a single cause. It's not quite like a Masonic cause, but there are similarities.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN: Has the decision already been made at an even higher level than this?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  That was very clear. From what I heard, they weren't a decision-making group. They were like an action group. They needed to convene periodically to discuss progress and tasks. Then, they disperse and go back and do what they must do due to these meetings.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Okay. And you attended one meeting?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Only one.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**And in what capacity did you attend this meeting?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> I mistakenly attended a meeting, thinking it was a regular three-monthly meeting. I recognized the names on the email list and assumed that my senior position in the City made me eligible to attend such meetings.

So when I went to the meeting, it wasn't the same venue. It was a livery company venue, which is quite unusual, but not too unusual to wonder why I went to this meeting, and it was not the meeting that I was expecting. I was invited because of my position and because they believed I was one of them, like themselves.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Did the team choose you for the invitation based on your existing relationship with them?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Yes, that's correct. I was considered a dependable person. I was someone who could get things done efficiently within my role in the organization.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Okay, now, when was this meeting? Let's put a date on it.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Okay, We're talking 2005. It was after the May general election that Blair was voted back in again. That meeting took place sometime in June of that year.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Is it okay to put on record that it was in June?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  June 2005 is OK. Yes.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark>  <mark style="color:red;">**All right. What juicy details can you give me about what happened in that meeting?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Well, as I mentioned, I was surprised to see the number of people there. The meeting ranged from several discussions covering several items or things that were happening in the world at the time, so there was quite a considerable discussion about security within the country; one of those three key persons there has now assumed the role of this is doing it now He's there now He's in that position right now.

The big thing at the time was Iraq. That was on their agenda, but surprisingly, there was much conversation and talk about Iran. What surprised me and raised my eyebrows was mention, open mention -- this was people talking comfortably to one another, not arguing or shouting -- but talking comfortably about the Israeli reluctance to strike and provoke Iran into armed action. That was something that raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

It appeared that the Israeli government was entangled in the events here, with an externally dictated role to play, extending beyond Israeli borders. A year later, Israel launched an attack on Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, which Iran backed.

And then the second thing that came out that I recall quite clearly was the mention of Japanese reluctance to create havoc within the Chinese financial sectors.

I couldn't understand why they discussed that and why it was necessary. What I picked up from this was the Japanese government or those in Japan being coerced or ordered into doing something that would wreck or slow down the Chinese rise to financial power.

They observed that China's swift economic growth primarily benefited its military, which was undergoing modernization through the funds generated from the global market.

And then, John, things took a turn, and I must admit my subjectivity here. I remember feeling quite unwell and anxious about the discussions that were taking place at that time.

I was on the periphery of this meeting, and I could feel the anxiety rise inside me because this was stuff that was getting spoken about off the cuff. It wasn't getting announced to anybody. These were things that they already knew about.

So, there was an open discussion about the utilization of biological weapons, specifying their intended locations and times of use and emphasizing the importance of timing. The timing was of paramount significance.

And then, there is more talk centered on how Iran should engage militarily to provoke the desired military response from China.

There is an apparent hope that Iran will fall into armed conflict with Western countries and that China will help Iran. Through this push, either China or Iran will use tactical nuclear weapons.

As I pointed out earlier, these individuals were not making decisions but were deliberating something already planned, exchanging information. As these discussions progressed, it became evident that the primary focus of this meeting was determining when the crucial moment would arrive – when all of this would occur.

Other talks centered on dealing with finances, resources, protection of assets, control of these resources, and bringing in outlying assets. And I can go through this chain of events with you now, Bill, if you like.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**I'd be pleased to go into as much detail as you feel you can.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Okay. Now, as I previously mentioned, they needed either the Chinese or the Iranians to be guilty of the first use of nuclear weapons to justify the next stage.

From this meeting and other sources, it is clear that Iran currently possesses a tactical nuclear capability rather than it being an ongoing development.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Do you have some expertise in this subject from your military background?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Yes, I do.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark>  <mark style="color:red;">**Okay, this means that in this meeting where you were hearing this information, you could hear this wearing your military hat, with your military experience, and understand strategically and tactically what they were talking about and why.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Oh. I could have even stepped in and corrected their terminology because I believed they were getting it wrong, but they were describing it the best way they could.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Right.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Yes, I have quite a deep knowledge of those weapons and weapons systems.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**Weapons systems in general; sure. Okay, back to where we were, that was a little footnote you put in there, saying that you felt, anecdotally, but you're also confident in that opinion, that Iran did have a current nuclear capability.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Yes, if I can put this in here, Bill, before this escapes me... it's anecdotal because the discussion didn't mention that Iran didn't have them. The discussion leaned toward the Iranians having that type of weapon and not having them. The absence of mention of the non-existence of weapons leaned towards their possession of such weapons.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark>**&#x20;** <mark style="color:red;">**I understand. Now, I don't want to get you off track, but there's the potential analogy with the Iraqi situation, where Western governments and military, whether they knew the truth or not, were undoubtedly telling the public that the Iraqi military capability was far more significant than it was, Is it possible that there was some delusion here concerning Iran's capability  Or do you think they did know what the Iranians have and could do?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Making a comparison with Iraq is a natural thing to do. However, in this context, it could be misleading.

The backing that Iraq got during the Iran-Iraq War was Western, And of course, "Western" we must include Israel, so the likelihood of Iraq getting a nuclear weapon that they haven't produced themselves but getting it imported to them would be extremely low.

On the one hand, we have Iran, which is receiving consistent support from China, Russia, and other countries. The military market is quite open, and even France independently exports their weapons wherever possible.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Yes.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Even in defiance of conventions about selling weapons abroad, this goes beyond that. We're discussing another country that effectively utilized a country during the Revolutionary period, portraying it as an enemy to all Western and Gulf states.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:**</mark> <mark style="color:red;">**You mean, you're talking about China using Iran?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> China. Yes, They're both using each other. Of course, China's economy is skyrocketing. I don't know if it's reached its plateau now or not, and I'm not talking about that, But the amount of weaponry and the level of technical expertise that Iran is receiving from the Chinese military --  It seems inconceivable that any package sent there hasn't included nuclear weapons, whether they are under the direct control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or jointly controlled by the Iranians and the Chinese. One can't be sure.

But I return to what I mentioned earlier, that at that meeting, the assumption was - and it was pretty straightforward - that the Iranians possessed such weapons because there was no mention to the contrary.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Understood. And what you're going to go on to talk about is how this cooperation between Iran and China was going to be used as a way to get at China -- because China's the primary target. Is this correct?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> That's correct. China has been the main target since at least the mid-70s -- and again, this information is through third parties, so I can't give you any direct first-hand evidence of this -- but it's always been China. It was always China to be the big one in this timeline.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN: Mm-hm.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Their current focus is on China, and the objective is to devise a strategy to exert pressure and engineer a situation that ultimately leads to war, Bill. There's no doubt that a war is on the horizon. The critical question is how to make it a credible scenario for everyone in the West ern world.

Establishing credibility involves using a state like Iran as a scapegoat to employ a nuclear weapon, provoke a response, and trigger an exchange.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that there has been a long-term plan in place for quite some time to set up a global situation as if it were a chessboard and that the ultimate goal of this plan is to provoke a war with China?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Yes, in a nutshell. You've understood it. It involves a series of events, many of which have already occurred. And again, time is of the essence.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  What has happened, and what is yet to happen, and what is the eventual roll-out plan they want to happen if everything they wanted were to occur?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Well, the plan is for the fuse to be set off in the Middle East again in a way that would make the previous conflicts in the Middle East look like playground scraps.

It will involve the use of nuclear weapons and, again, it's to create an atmosphere of chaos and extreme fear, not just in the West but throughout the world, and to put in place what I've mentioned as unified totalitarian Western governments: and to do this China needs to be taken out, politically and socially, for this to happen.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN: Is this strategy aimed at reducing the global population, affecting the people of China and everyone on the planet? What is their position on this issue?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> There was discussion of the use of biological agents described as having flu-like characteristics, with the potential to spread rapidly. Although they didn't specifically mention it during the meeting, I have since learned that it would target people genetically, not everyone simultaneously. How this would occur: I'm not a geneticist. It may be related to DNA in some manner.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN: Mm-hm.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Scientists have identified genetic variations that could potentially be used to develop deadly viruses.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  And so the viruses are genetically targeted, is what you're saying?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Yes.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Are they talking about getting the Chinese out of the way because they're an inconvenient major group that's not playing ball with the global plans, Or are they talking about this as an excuse to thin down the entire world's population, including that in the Western countries?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Well, it's an excellent question, and as far as I can see, it's a hypothetical one. Again, I can't give you an answer to that one. From a personal point of view, it is a thinning of the world's population, and it's getting it down into a controllable size for this government that will come for them to have the control they wish for. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it.

Even discussing this now disgusts me. It truly does. It sickens me immensely that they would proceed with such actions and that such discussions have occurred. They deliberately reduce the population to what they perceive as a "manageable level."

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Okay, What's the timing for this series of events, as best you know?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> As best I know... 18 months… It's definitely before 2012.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Okay.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Or around 2012, sometime in that year.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN: Somebody reading this will ask: Okay, this is what they discussed in 2005. How can you know that this plan is still on track, that things haven't changed radically, that they haven't abandoned it completely, that there hasn't been some big U-turn or epiphany here? What makes you so confident that this is still on track?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Because of the events that have occurred since 2005, that's the most coherent way to view it. We've already had a so-called financial collapse. It wasn't a collapse at all. It was a centralization of financial power. That's happened. It's certainly happened in the United States. It's most certainly happened in the United Kingdom. It's most certainly happened in France and Germany. So, all the key players in the Western world centralized their financial assets.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Was this talked about in the meeting?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> It took up quite a large part of that meeting about how it would happen. Remember where the meeting took place -- in the City of London. The City is the financial hub of the world, beyond any question.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  So what you're saying then is that all of these things have happened according to their roll-out of this plan.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> That's right -- and all the preparations that need to be in place before this type of conflict takes place, that's already been put in place too.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Such as what? What are you referring to?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Well, you're talking about crucial figures taking over. Let's take a good example here, which probably most people in the United Kingdom are unaware of, that the British private security industry employs 500,000 people, far more than the U.K. military. The U.K. military is far smaller than that. The U.K. military is only a couple of hundred thousand. You're talking 500,000 people working in the private security industry.

Now, before 2005, there was no regulation for that. There was no training, no unification of that force of people, And behind the scenes -- and this is something people should be able to be aware of, especially those living in the U.K. -- there was the 2001 Private Security Industry Act.

That act meant anybody working within the private sector had to undergo specific training. It is necessary for individuals who are responsible for security

to undergo a police check. This ensures that they are fit for the role and can be trusted. Police checks uncover more than criminal records, providing a comprehensive overview of the individual's background. Therefore, security personnel need to undergo police checks to ensure the safety and security of everyone involved.

And then there's training. This training is all about managing conflict: what to do in times of conflict, how to manage it, and how to control it. And then they're taught how to use controlled force. It extends from there.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  So you're talking about handling problems of civil unrest. This is all a setup for that.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Indeed. You can take the protests that took place after the 2003 invasion of Iraq here in the United Kingdom and in Western Europe and also in the States, but mainly in Western Europe. It was like a mass uprising against the war in Iraq.

It is essential to acknowledge that certain events will not occur again. However, individuals in the security industry require lawful empowerment to perform their jobs as they will continue to protect assets. Currently, the Security Industry Association is seeking and receiving more powers in addition to the licenses they have already obtained to operate legally within the civilian environment. They are now being granted additional police powers to perform their duties effectively.

It's not just for those in the British security industry; it's also those who are called "civilian enforcement officers": parking attendants, that sort of thing; community police officers; those who are aiding the police in doing their job, they're getting powers commensurate with the responsibilities that have required to enable them to do the job effectively  So we're talking about powers of arrest; powers of detention; we're talking down those lines, And that's going to happen.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  What can ordinary people do? How should they react? How should they think? Do you personally feel that this is inevitable? Do you think we're all doomed in some way?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> No, absolutely not. I've often thought about this, Bill, and this, of course, is a personal vieKerry: We will endure, But to endure, from one person to the next, is not to work for them anymore. It's to stop working for them. It's not to react violently against them because they'll win. They would love that to happen, and then it gives them an excuse to breed fear and violence -- the reaction to fear. That would be like bees to honey for them. They would love that to happen.

What's needed is a non-violent reaction: simply not doing the job for them anymore. To give a comparison, Bill  There was a man whom history has largely ignored. He was a Frenchman by the name of Jean Jaurès. It's always surprised me why this incredible character has never entered the history books. He's well-known in some circles but not widely known in France.

He predicted the First World War happening. He wanted the International Workers' Movement to not comply with the royal families and aristocracy, and when you read about him, you'll find this out yourself. Just a couple of months before the outbreak, when the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand took place in Serbia, Jaurès was assassinated in a French café. They killed him. He was shot dead, and with him went that movement.

Before World War One, he saw the writing on the wall. He saw the aristocracies and the royal families of Europe pitting themselves against one another in a big battle. He knew France, Germany, and the United Kingdom were all industrialized nations. He further realized that with industrialization, the next war would be an industrial war that could result in millions of people being killed.

He formed a movement that some have termed as communist. It was the International Workers' Movement, and it's got nothing to do with politics. His idea was for the ordinary person not to do anything, not to go to war, stay at home, and they wouldn't have the war they wanted.

If non-violence is adopted and people become more awake to what's happening, they significantly, very quickly lose the power they've got. They feed on power and fear, so they become powerless if you take these elements away from them. They need us to do what they're doing. They can't do it on their own even though they'll be damn dangerous in any event, but they can't do it all on their own.

My message is to wake up a bit, see what's happening about us, put our heads above the parapet, and without fear to do that, without feeling afraid, take a deep breath, have a look around, see what's happening, and then people will soon realize: Oh yeah  Okay  This is where we're going to go  This is where we're heading, and there's not much I can do about it  But they can!

As I've said, it's not to react violently, And if people are in positions where these people need them, don't work for them. Just stop working for them. Take your labor away because they need the troops to do this work. We're not just talking about people in the military. We're talking about every civilian member in all the populations globally. Just say: No, because this is not us. This is not what we want to do.

And it's making that choice. It sounds effortless; I think the execution of it is that simple, and it's well within our power as human beings, conscious living, breathing, human beings who have a shared compassion for one another, to do that  Because if we don't, they'll carry on and then they'll realize their endgame.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Do you think, from your own military experience, that there are enough people in the military who are saying: You know what? I didn't sign up for this. I'm not going to do this. Or will they buy into all the justifications being set up now?**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark>  Well, by and large, the Western military is not a conscripted army. It's a professional army, and it prides itself on its professionalism. It prides itself on acting on behalf of the people who elected the government and sending them out to do the job that they're doing. It's a complicated question to answer, And of course, these troops are superbly trained, and they believe, they wholly believe, as I did when I was in the military, that you're doing the job for all the right reasons.

If it became clear to people who are in such professions -- this is not just the military; we're talking about the emergency services, the police, all those who've made their way into the security industry, we're talking about all these people  If enough voices were heard, then those in the military who have not achieved any significant rank, who have no particular stake in the game, will then wake up themselves just as soon as anybody else.

But it must be borne in mind that the Western powers have professional military services, and it's challenging to make it clear and let these guys and girls know that they're not fighting the right people.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Sure, Let me ask a different question. Was there a reference to "safe or safer places to be?" Physically, I mean.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> No, None at all.

<mark style="color:red;">**JOHN:  Okay, All right. This is very, very important. Thank you for your courage, and thank you for your spirit.**</mark>

<mark style="color:yellow;">**KERRY:**</mark> Thank you very much, too, John.

· Visiting and communicating with life beyond Earth

· Time travel

· Consciousness control

· Confidential cutting-edge technology

· Free energy

· Changes that the Earth may face

· Exposing known plots to control human beings.

Their official website is [https://projectcamelotportal.com/](https://projectcamelotportal.com/). We also hope that the believers who read the content can communicate with them in-depth, but because we are people in the dark, they have agreed to protect our privacy and secrets and may not admit this conversation with us, but the truth and seriousness of the above will be acknowledged.&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://2233741966-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FrRcBBPzg9jE9aMZTtVnd%2Fuploads%2FbVU1UFurgbqrp3mbO2sq%2Fimage.png?alt=media&#x26;token=87cf3c66-120f-4b1e-98fe-3b5d31170864" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>
