Airplane challenge pantsing (with slow-mo() Humiliated + Laughed at without being helped - name a better combo! 😂 #humiliated #embarrassed #ass #dick #nude #pantsed #pantsing #kegged #debagged #dacked #enm #cmnm #stripped #exposed
230,969 次观看 • 11 天前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![This is beyond insane: Keith Kellog, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, confirms that Europe will NOT have a seat at the table in the negotiations to end the war. When asked at the Munich Security Conference “Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?”, his response was: “the answer to that last question is no.” By “last question”, he meant whether Europeans will be at the table. Later on in the conversation, he was asked to confirm this: “So the Europeans [...] you don't think should be at the table directly?”. His answer again was “I’m from the school of realism, I think that’s not going to happen”, and that he understood hearing this might be “like fingers on a chalkboard, may grate a little bit but I'm telling you something that's really quite honest.” He was very clear though that he still expected Europeans to provide security guarantees and abide by the deal: “you have to understand, when you sign up for these security guarantees, that is an obligation and the reason I say that and I challenge many people that are out there, right now, 2014 Wales declaration, all the NATO allies, 2% of GDP, 20% of that was modernization, there are still 8 nations who've not even gotten to that number, okay? So when we get to it make sure you check your 6 as they say that the obligation is upon YOU when WE make these commitments.” So to sum up, the US position is that Europe should stay out of negotiations that will fundamentally affect their security architecture - yet bear the primary responsibility and cost for the negotiations' outcome. And on top of that, it’s quite clear from previous Trump declarations (like here: that the U.S. will be looking in the deal to take control of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as payment for the military aid it has provided, leaving presumably nothing to Europe. I’ve repeatedly warned that Europe was fast walking towards its own century of humiliation if it continued on its current path. I think it’s now pretty damn clear that we’re very much there already. If this goes through, this would possibly be unprecedented in European history - never before, to my knowledge, has Europe's security architecture been redrawn without any European power at the table. Even during Europe's darkest moments - including the Mongol invasions, the Ottoman expansions, or the Yalta Conference - European powers always had some voice in negotiations affecting their future. To be clear, the primary culprit here isn’t the U.S. or Trump: any student of history knows that we live in a deeply unfair world where, as ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote 2,500 years ago, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." As such the blame lies almost entirely on us Europeans, or more precisely on our immensely incompetent leaders. And I want to stress this last point: they are literally incompetent on a millennia scale, given that they've managed to reduce Europe to a position that lacks any historical parallel, where it's expected to simply accept and implement whatever security arrangements others decide for it. Trump himself does what’s best for the U.S. - “America first”, remember? - and to be fair to him the Biden administration left him with a pretty bad hand. It’s crystal clear that Russia won in Ukraine, despite all of NATO’s efforts, and as such the U.S. very much risked coming out of it looking like the loser that it objectively is. Faced with this, Trump’s strategy clearly is to reframe this defeat into an “art of the deal” victory by securing U.S. access to Ukraine's natural resources while offloading the costs and responsibilities of the post-war security arrangement onto Europe. Meanwhile Europe, which has failed to develop any meaningful strategic autonomy over the past decades (in fact it’s moved in the opposite direction), finds itself with little leverage to prevent this. In fact, European “leaders”, in their treasonous meekness, are already signaling that they’ll resign themselves to their fate. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, for instance enticed Europeans not to complain about the situation ("to my European friends, I would say, get into the debate, not by complaining that you might, yes or no, be at the table, but by coming up with concrete proposals, ideas, ramp up (defense) spending", And Keir Starmer, invited by Macron at a “crisis summit” in Paris to discuss the situation, said that his primary goal in the meeting would be “to ensure we keep the US and Europe together. We cannot allow any divisions in the alliance to distract from the external enemies we face.” ( I let you appreciate the perfect illustration this provides of the very mindset that has led Europe to this unprecedented position of weakness - responding to diplomatic humiliation with calls for even more subservience. So what could Europe do? After all, it is true that they have very little leverage, mainly due to the fact that they are “protected” by the very power that decided to put them on the menu instead of at the table. One idea could be to out-Trump Trump, and to angle for a deal where the U.S., not Europe, ends up the loser. They could for instance finally tell the truth about what led to the war in the first place, namely NATO expansion pushed by the U.S., as well as the U.S.-led coup in Ukraine in 2014, and dissociate themselves from this, just the way Trump is very conveniently trying to dissociate himself from his own country’s previous policies. They could make it clear that they reject any deal that gives the U.S. access to any of Ukraine's resources, and signal to Russia that they're open to a different kind of security architecture in Europe - one that doesn't rely on U.S. leadership or NATO. After all, if Trump can say he'll make deals with Putin, why couldn't Europe do the same? They could also reach out to China, which has already made it very clear that it opposed a deal in Ukraine without Europe at the table ( and which is anyhow much better positioned to negotiate with Russia than Trump is. We could end up with a Europe freed from American tutelage for the first time since 1945, establishing a new multipolar equilibrium with China and Russia - turning Trump's attempt to exclude Europe into the very catalyst that finally enables European strategic autonomy. But this would require a level of strategic thinking that current European leaders have consistently shown themselves incapable of. Instead I’m afraid they'll continue their current path of attempting to maintain the façade of transatlantic unity even as they're being openly humiliated.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1891022001177088425/ext_tw_video_thumb/1891020538526720000/pu/img/cV0YPbXkYSFNBaZm.jpg)
!["There was a willingness to communicate. [The non-human entity] wanted to establish communication with us." ~JV 💥 Has AI Figured Out the Identify of Gilbert? 👀 👽 Did an Alien Volunteer to be Studied and Communicate with Humans in a Secret USG Facility? Is it Still There? 👽 "My understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while." ~JV This is Pt. 1 - Pt. 2 has the AI sleuthing on the possible identity of Gilbert. Excellent job by Ross Coulthart. And if you wanna see my post on Gilbert, the alleged Alien Entity, Vallée...and ALL Gilbert-related entries in FS V7 ⬇️⬇️⬇️ I'm taking with this with a major grain of salt until we hear from Gilbert. Then, I'll revaluate.) ~ Ross Coulthart: "You write in your Forbidden Science (7) diaries, in October 2021 for the first time, you mention someone called Gilbert. It's a pseudonym, but essentially, it's a long-lost friend, a discreet master remote viewer at the level of Uri Geller and Ingo Swann." Jacques Vallée: "Yes." (If your response to hearing Geller's name mentioned is, "Oh, he's been proven to be a fraud. See Johnny Carson,' then you haven't done your homework on Uri. Drs. Kit Green and Hal Puthoff on Geller. ~ Kit Green: "Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does and the films of what he does recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magician's tricks. There’s not even a remotely qualified individual who’s ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy – that it’s all trickery. The RV [remote-viewing] experiments for me were astonishing. He was a superb remote viewer, he was a superstar." ~ Coulthart: "And Gilbert tells you that, through official channels, presumably, government channels, he was taken to participate in a controlled, personal exchange with a, supposed, alien. And you acknowledge in your diary that these revelations are explosive. "And by September 2023, you've received five closely-typed pages detailing how Gilbert says he was taken to a U.S. laboratory, sheltered inside rock, where military guides exposed him to what they explicitly told him was a living alien entity. Now, do you believe Gilbert's account, Jacques? I know at one stage you query: was this a fully veridical (truthful) account? Do you think Gilbert was telling you the truth?" Jacques Vallée: "I have....I believe it for two reasons. You know, believe is a bad word. It's a religious word, it's a commitment, and so on. And everybody is free to believe whatever we want to believe. In science, you know, belief is a contingency. You face a phenomenon. You build a theory of a phenomenon, but the theory, there is no such thing as a theory without a way of testing it. "Now I have no way of testing what Gilbert has told me. I'm not going to reveal the rest of his data because that's his data, and I know there are plans to publish it in the proper way, so that everybody has access to it. I have the data, but it's not up to me to publish it. "There have been other cases, and I've had one personal occasion of coming face-to-face with an entity that is very similar to the entity that he describes. To my shame, I was so scared because this was unprepared. I was not intending to do that." Coulthart: "Are you saying that you had your own personal encounter with an entity? Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "When did that happen?" Vallée: "I had no communication with that entity because I was simply too scared, and I mention it in the book." ~Begin excerpt from FS V6~ Hummingbird. Saturday 27 October 2018. ...something brief and terrifying happened last night, far more tangible than a nightmare. As I review it, I have to accept an experience outside my body. All I know is that in the middle of the night I found myself propelled away into the kitchen, a tall being between me and the window. I couldn’t see a face, but it was tall like me, human-like, solid. A few seconds later I woke up suddenly, back into my lying body, panting and whimpering, terrified. It had been absolutely, shockingly real. No transition, none of that slow lifting of the soul people describe. I had been translated from the bedroom, standing up, totally aware, next to the entity that hovered near me without touching, yet encompassing me in a formidable presence. This is as close to a full out-of-body experience as I have ever had. It left me whimpering and scared. (Not a fan of JV mentioning this dream-like/out-of-body experience in the same breath as Gilbert's, alleged face-to-face, physical encounter with a living entity.) ~End Excerpt from FS V6 - Back to JV with Coulthart~ Vallée: "Now in [Gilbert's] case this was very structured. He was asked to be there. And, by the way, it's not classified. I asked him if it was classified, he said, 'No.' And this was 20 years ago, this is not recent." Coulthart: "So, let's go through some of the detail of what you do reveal in [FS 7]. In December 2024, you write that you've seen Gilbert's structured results, and he says he was, apparently, instructed to put specific questions directly to the entity. And it gets fascinating. "Some of the questions generated impressions and responses he couldn't decipher. And what you conclude is that there may be two different levels of NHI, non-human intelligence. Your interpretation, or your friend's interpretation of what he got from the being, is that the higher-level controllers are genuinely alien, whereas the small beings - perhaps the Grays associated with UFO encounters - may be primitive biological hybrids, specifically engineered for terrestrial operation. Is that your conclusion, Jacques?" Vallée: "Well, again, I'm an information scientist. I try to look for patterns of things, so I don't look at one case, you know, separate from others. I look for patterns of cases. In Trinity, in Socorro, in Valensole, and now in the case in Brazil that was revealed recently. "We have a dozen entities. These entities were small; they were the size of, you know, a 10-year-old or 12-year-old kid. They had two eyes and a mouth. They were breathing air. They did not look like our astronauts with, you know, all kinds of suits and [a] support system. They were breathing air. You could understand the, you know, any sense from their eyes. Overall, their structure was human." "Over the years, there have been efforts to theorize in biology about what it would take to create a different kind of human adapted to certain things. We are going to face that problem in space. NASA has looked at that. But before NASA, you know, certainly in World War II, that question was raised already. "And there are...and I mentioned a case from an American biologist who came back from Russia with at least a rumor that the Russians were developing short humanoids for future space missions, because that would save, you know... The most expensive part in the space missions we have now, like the Moon, is the human pilot, okay? If we could do away with the human pilot, or if we could minimize that pilot, then the technology would be safer and would probably function better. "So that question had been discussed in biology. Now, the threshold was, you know, a moral threshold. Are we permitted to create? I mean, we are clearly at the position where, as you know, that the question arose in China recently. You know, was there an experiment to manipulate an egg and create them? So, those are very current questions in biology. "Could some of the beings be just operators? Because in Brazil, especially, they did not seem to be in control at all. And the same thing in Trinity. Trinity is a very important case." (Speculatively speaking: If Gilbert actually came face-to-face with a non-human entity, how would we know if it was one of the actual alien "controllers (as JV suggests)" and not a different type of lower-level, artificial-intelligence-fused being designed to trick us into thinking we've actually met the controllers? Is there any way of knowing? Maybe Gilbert can shed light on that? Maybe what he encountered was just another type of being engineered and created by the controllers for terrestrial operation in order to keep their distance from us, or for some other reason? Or, maybe JV is correct and that was one of the actual alien controllers?) ~ Coulthart: "Can I just pull you back for a moment, though, to Gilbert's story, Jacques? Because I think it's incredibly important. What it's unique for, is it's actually somebody you have spoken to, directly, giving a first-person physical account of an encounter with a non-human being in what sounds like a U.S. military government facility." (Is the entity still there now?) Coulthart: "And there's actually a moment in your diaries, 12th of March 2025, where you actually get from Gilbert, a physical description of what he saw. He was, apparently, brought in as a specialist. He didn't know whether there were other captured or, interestingly enough, volunteer beings. But he had a rough idea of approximately where he was being taken. "He couldn't see outside the vehicle, but he was inside a small mountain, some kind of, perhaps, deep underground military bunker. Inside was a large, well-lit laboratory staffed by men and women wearing uniforms without rank or unit identification. There was no medical procedures or drugs. "And then, Gilbert says to you, he was brought face-to-face with the alleged entity. And it wasn't a Gray. It was over six feet tall. It, apparently, emitted light from different parts of its body, may have been enclosed in some sort of wired suit, test article, or a containment apparatus." (Was the suit designed to protect the being from our environment or to protect the humans in that room from the being? And just to reiterate, I'll assume it was an alien being. My friend made these excellent points... "We don't know if the parts of its body emitting light were its body or some sort of harness or device it was wearing. And if it was some sort of harness/device what was its purpose and whose device was it? Was it life support? Alien shackles? Was it meant to help, or control? "Say for instance, a harness device that emits a frequency that prevents the being from doing something? Leaving? Disappearing? Communicating?") ~ Coulthart: "And it, apparently, communicated through combinations of light, and permitted questions concerning psychic functioning. And he had several hours of communication with this being. Now, you've made it clear you believe Gilbert's account, you accept Gilbert's account. This is extraordinary." Vallée: "I've known him for a long time, and I know what else he's done, which is extraordinary. So..." Coulthart: "I mean, this is very important, Jacques. Is this person willing to give evidence to a congressional inquiry, if they're not subject to classified limitations, security oaths, or NDAs?" Vallée: "I asked him that because, obviously, I did not want to get into something that would take me, you know, beyond that range. And he said, 'No,' he was not... He asked, 'You know, do I need a special clearance for this?' He has done other work, you know, for the military." Coulthart: "Right. But I was analyzing the implications of what you say in the diary about Gilbert. And to summarize it, it's more than a psychic once met an alien. What it is, is, a classified U.S. group allegedly possesses, or hosts, a living, non-human intelligent being, and they've been operating a systematic, multidisciplinary communication program with it, over time. And Gilbert was brought in as one specialist to conduct controlled communications with it. Do you accept that that's the implication of what you say in the diary?" Vallée: "This is logical in terms of what we know from a long time. What the procedure would be. The structure was...did not go into psychic functioning, you know? The questions that they had been asked were basic physiological, physical questions. They brought [Gilbert] in so that he was authorized to create his own questions and to probe...to see to what extent he could elicit a response that would be a psychic response from that entity. "The question is: At what level do they function? We know we have some ability to function on a psychic level. Some people can practice this better than others. We know from the SRI work by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ and others that this can be trained. As you know, I was involved in that project to some extent over several years, and with Ingo. So, I went through the procedure with Ingo for an entire year. What Gilbert is describing matches that very well. In other words, there was a procedure." Coulthart: "So, you allude, Jacques, to the fact that Gilbert is, apparently, writing his own book about what he encountered. Can you clarify for me, though, is Gilbert willing to give evidence to the ongoing congressional investigations into this?" (Good on Ross to follow-up because JV didn't answer it the first time.) Coulthart: "There are very few people who are willing to give first-person evidence. And if he's not restrained by classification-security-oaths constraints, what's stopping him from coming forward, even confidentially, to a secure SCIF in the Congress, and giving this evidence?" Vallée: "I cannot answer for him. He has a long career in helping, you know, different projects in a classified setting. So, he's quite capable of answering that. What I know is...I don't know that he is writing a book. There is a project for a series of interviews, and I've participated in that. I've given a few interviews about my own work. But I know he's been part of that project. I don't know how it's going to be released or whether it's going to be released. I'm not part of the business that owns that data." (Well, whatever that is, it really needs to be released. Interviews in written form, or on camera?) Coulthart: "I'm very excited by the Gilbert character, and forgive me for harping on about him. Can I at least clarify, Gilbert is a he." (I'm just as excited. This COULD be HUGE!) Vallée: "I don't want to give away any indication. You know, I have not had communication, recently. I don't know how far that project has gone. It's their project, and there is a boundary to what I can say." Coulthart: "But who are they, Jacques? Like, when you say it's their project, you're talking about the individual known as Gilbert by pseudonym?" Vallée: "And the release of that information. His intent is to release it." Coulthart: "I've got to ask you this, and I appreciate you may not want to disclose, but is the person that you're talking about Keith Harary?" Vallée: "Umm, no. I can definitely tell you it's not Keith." (Later in this interview, JV said he met Gilbert when he (Gilbert) was 22. Out of the public names associated with gifted psychics and remote viewers, Harary comes close. But there's another possibility that I'll let ChatGPT lay out in the 2nd tweet. If you've studied remote viewing, you know the name Keith Harary. If you'd like to read an excellent article written by Keith "Blue" Harary in Psychology Today, here ya go: dot com/us/articles/200411/confessions-of-a-star-psychic ~ Coulthart: "Is it Joe McMoneagle?" Vallée: "[laughs] I shouldn't play... It's an interesting game, but, you know, there are two or three other names." Coulthart: "Joseph McMoneagle, of course, Jacques, as you and I both know, he worked with you at SRI. He was remote viewer number one in the U.S. Army intelligence program." Vallée: "I have enormous amount of respect for Mr. McMoneagle." Coulthart: "So do I. Joe is probably one of the most respected remote viewers known to the U.S. military (JV shakes his head up and down in agreement) and the U.S. intelligence community. And I noted back in Forbidden Science 3, Joe told you about UFO-related material. And Joe talked about how a photograph of a disc had inexplicably disappeared from a classified safe under his sole control. And he you quoted him saying to you, 'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data.' What's going on here, Jacques?" Here's the excerpt from FS V3... "Joe [McMoneagle] once obtained a detailed photograph of a disk. He placed a copy in a locked safe with double combination, a classified safe under his sole control. Yet the photograph vanished. “'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data,' he said, 'a level beyond the folks who run the satellites.'" (The Gatekeepers?) ~ Coulthart: "Clearly, someone - if it's Joe McMoneagle, let's just call them Gilbert. Someone invited Gilbert to a secure facility, presumably, a secure-government facility, yet at the same time we have the government - in the form of AARO, the Pentagon - asserting, blue and blind, that there is absolutely no evidence of extraterrestrial-non-human-intelligence engagement with this planet. We know that's not true. What's going on, sir? You, probably more than anyone, know the answer to that question." Vallée: "It's a central question, of course, and I don't want to make, you know, to treat it in a humorous way. But I recall a conversation with Dr. Hynek when I was working with him back at Northwestern. And I said, 'You know, what does the Air Force say and what does the Air Force think?' And he said, 'Jacques, you have to understand, there is no such thing as the U.S. Air Force. There are projects within the Air Force that do different things.'" (Kind of like when people say, "The GOVERNMENT does this and that." Like the Air Force, the U.S. government is not a monolith. AARO may have had no clue about the Gilbert story, until JV put out V7. Maybe they still don't know?) Vallée: "And that's legitimate. [The USAF] are looking at different parts of, you know, the whole planet, with the tools they have. And they have different opinions about things, and they have budgets to pursue different things with different projects. And many times they don't know about the other project." Coulthart: "Is it possible that Gilbert was being played?" Vallée: "[shakes his head back and forth] No. No." Coulthart: "That he was shown something that was an intention to try and see what a master remote viewer would think of what he was being shown?" Vallée: "He's one of the best psychics in the world today, and has been throughout his career." (It's impossible to know 100% that what Gilbert encountered (assuming this actually happened) was a non-human entity. And even if/when he comes forward, that won't change. We're going to need evidence besides anecdotes.) ~ Coulthart: "So you find him very credible." Vallée: "I met him when he was 22." Coulthart: "What state was the location in, where this facility that he was taken to is located? Did he give you that indication?" Vallée: "I don't know the level of if there is a security wrapper around this. I don't know at what level. So, I've purposely been vague in the book, again." Coulthart: "I got that. Was there a date for the encounter? I think you indicated to me earlier it was about 20 years ago. Is that right?" Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "Have you seen any evidence proving that Gilbert was actually at that location? Has he provided you with any substantiating...or corroboration?" Vallée: "No. No. No. And that's why I don't want to go beyond, you know, reporting about that conversation and my trust in the conversation. I have no way of checking this. My own experience would indicate that that kind of thing is happening. Probably (in many places)." (Crosstalk, so I'm not 100% sure on "in many places." And what "experience" is JV talking about?) Coulthart: "Can I ask you a few questions, though? And you don't have to answer these if you're uncomfortable. Did he physically touch the entity?" Vallée: "No." Coulthart: "Was the entity a prisoner?" Vallée: "No. I asked him that question, of course, and he said the entity was a volunteer." (We need all the details on how that happened. Via a crash retrieval? Did it knock on the door one day? Teleport into their lab? Amazon Prime delivery in a REALLY big box with holes in it? 🙂 And why should we trust the entity? My friend added this: "A death-row prisoner agreeing to cooperate with authorities on something could be considered volunteering…but is still a prisoner. Did the being say it’s a volunteer or was it the people at the facility? Do we really have to wait around for a possible book we actually might never see?") ~ Coulthart: "You, intriguingly, talk about, in your diary, captured or volunteer beings. You're clear that this being was there voluntarily?" Vallée: "Yes." Coulthart: "But it suggests that there are other beings that are captured." Vallée: "I don't know. I'm not, you know, fudging here. I really don't know the answer." Coulthart: "Okay. Do you know from Gilbert how long the entity had been with this facility, with the humans?" Vallée: "No, and I asked Gilbert that. He did not know that. He was there just for that one presentation and that was..." Coulthart: "Was the entity alive, in the sense that we think of something being biologically alive?" Vallée: "Yes. Now, I have no doubt, as you know, I'm not an expert about Hollywood, but I've, occasionally, seen what Hollywood could do in terms of special effects. And, of course, everything can be a special effect." (Again, according to JV, Gilbert may have seen, "a test article, a wired uniform or a safety container for the being rather than the body of an actual Alien." So, Gilbert may not know what it actually looked like. Hard to be definitive on what this entity was and we'll need to hear from Gilbert for more details.) Coulthart: "Did Gilbert explain why he, a remote viewer, was required to communicate with the being, if, as you say in the diary, it was communicating with light?" Vallée: "Yes, yes. Because the people in charge were smart enough to understand that the communication that that being was capable of was beyond the... I mean, we have the same thing with whales, you know? Whales can read the inside of your body. I mean, women who were attending to whales, the whale would know they were pregnant before they knew they were pregnant." (That hasn't been proven.) Vallée: "So, those situations are, you know...we have aliens (he smiled and I believe he used quotation marks with his hands) here on Earth in the form of some very intelligent animals that perceive things completely outside our range. So, it's not a new situation." Coulthart: "No, but I think this is the revelation - I think, one of the most important revelations in your latest book - that we are talking here about someone who you accept as telling the truth, who says they were part of what sounds like a U.S. government, U.S. military program, where they were asked to communicate with a non-human being. Can I ask you this, sir? Did conventional spoken language fail, or was it not possible with this being?" Vallée: "The answers were in the form of light configurations." Coulthart: "And so, had we learned, had humans learned how to communicate with it through light?" Vallée: "From what he told me, there was limited knowledge of what was positive and negative. He was asked to only frame questions in a way that where the answer could be yes or no, And that's why there were situations where he said he couldn't understand the answer." (Yes or no questions? I'm gonna assume the entity had no thumbs. Thumbs up? 👍🏽 Thumbs down? 👎🏼 😊) Coulthart: "One of the things you say in your diary - and I've learned to read Jacques Vallee's diaries very, very closely indeed - you say Gilbert's answers matched earlier results. Earlier results from whom, Jacques? I really think this is a very important question. What are you talking about there?" Vallée: "Well, the...you know, my understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while. I mean, this isn't just a one-off situation. They had a base. Again, I said, 'What were the insignias?' He said, 'They were probably people from different branches of the armed forces there. You know, the people there were experts, men and women, you know, who seemed to be coming and going.' There may have been other labs. You know, he was in one lab." Coulthart: "Is it your understanding that this communication with this being is communicating today? Is it still happening?" Vallée: "I have no way of knowing." Coulthart: "So it was happening 20 years ago, but we don't know if that program is still operating today." Vallée: "What was important to me, again, in terms of what we can derive from the database and from other, you know, all the other contact cases, is that the communication was primarily light, in the form of light."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2104287905443434740/amplify_video_thumb/2104285861336739840/img/AgvdmqeGRC_Dzu5K.jpg)
![🚨❓🛸 Breaking: What the Heck is Going On? 👽❓🚨 Senior White House Officials: We cannot find any copies of the DIA's AAWSAP records. Robert Bigelow: "We have copies of everything [from AAWSAP]." (Please spread this far and wide and tag the appropriate people. Aaron Lukas Stephen Miller Donald J. Trump BigelowPodcast Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS). Let's get these folks together.) ~ Ainsley Earhardt: "....is releasing new documents that might provide proof of extraterrestrial life, including decades-old, never-before-seen UFO footage." Brian Brian Kilmeade: "Really? We should have led with this." Lawrence Jones: "Right. Peter Doocy joins us live from the White House with this exclusive. Hey, Peter." (Doocy has been kicking ass with his reporting on UAP.) Peter Doocy: "Good morning. I was summoned to an office in the West Wing yesterday for a private briefing about these files that you're about to see on your screen for the first time ever. "Let's show the first clip. It was taken by a Navy aerial photographer. His name was Delbert Newhouse. It was taken along a Utah highway. If you look closely, it looks like a drone swarm, but there were no known drones in the sky when this video was taken in 1952. "I am told they took the first and only copy of this film. They found it in the National Archives. It has been digitized into 4K to be released right here for the first time today." (I watched it today. Film footage from 1952 that's turned into 4K isn't much clearer. But...the Newhouse film clip was first released in 1956, and it was stabilized and posted on YouTube in recent years and that's much better than what was released today. I'm no expert on everything historical in ufology but I'll share something on that 1952 sighting in another post that's MUCH better than what was put out today by our government.) Doocy: "The second clip we have taken by a law enforcement officer's iPhone along a busy Colorado highway three years ago. The officer's narration and some nearby buildings have been redacted. I heard the unredacted version, though, and he is describing multiple orbs hovering over a sensitive military installation for 15 minutes at a time. This one was three years ago. "And then we have a third clip taken by a drone over the Middle East last year. It shows six objects flying in formation, destination unknown. The Pentagon looks at this, they say they do not know what they are looking at on the screen. "And then there's this. There is a newly declassified copy of an expense report, a line-by-line expense report, going through the $22 million dollars that the DIA spent to investigate repeated, years-long claims over something called Skinwalker Ranch. Claims of extra...things in the sky, UFOs, UAPs." (This was AAWSAP and it wasn't focused just on Skinwalker Ranch. Not even close. Read, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Drs. James Lacatski and Colm Kelleher, and award-winning, investigative journalist, George Knapp, for an inside look at that program. And the three follow-up books, with the last two authored by Lacatski himself). Doocy: "Harry Reid, before he passed away - this was in 2008 - got $22 million dollars to investigate this. Officials now are telling me, senior White House officials are telling me, they cannot find any copy of the records. They've got all the proof that this government contractor was spending $22 million dollars to do this investigation, but when folks high up at the White House who can just pick up the phone and say, 'I need a copy of those records,' make the call, they are being told that if these records were created, they are either lost or something happened to them. "Somebody has them; they are not available to White House officials right now. Which kind of seems like one of these UFO movies where it gets to the Oval Office and the president has to be told that there are certain things that are too classified even for the president." (Those senior White House officials should contact the guy who briefed Trump in the Oval Office in February on UFOs: Robert Bigelow. Bigelow's company, BAASS (Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies), was the contractor for that program.) Here's Bigelow on Episode 2 of The Bigelow Podcast: Bigelow: "BAASS, our organization, we have the 38 papers. We have copies of everything [from AAWSAP]." George Knapp: "The DIRDs." Bigelow: "We have everything. We have all the other papers going up to about approximately 100. So, DIA has those someplace." Knapp: "But they deny it. They say, 'We don't have 'em.'" Bigelow: "Well, I don't know. They could be buried in a frigging trailer or the back of a car somewhere in the trunk and put into a cellar. I don't know where it is, but we have ours, we have copies of everything. (Problem solved. I'm sure those senior White House officials will be on a plane to Las Vegas once they see my tweet. 🙄) Bigelow: "I don't think it's our business to go around the government and divulge ours without sanction of proof, without approval. I mean, without approval. I feel uncomfortable about that. I don't mind the 38 papers (which have been public for years). I think beyond that, I'm uncomfortable by not having some kind of official, ass-covering approval, you know?" (I disagree. The American taxpayers paid for that. Release it all. They then go on the discuss how personal details of people involved would need to be scrubbed if those papers were to ever be made public. No problem with that. But Mr. Bigelow has had a decade and a half to do that. Either way, that should NOT stop Mr. Bigelow from calling his contact at the White House (or vice verse), doubling down, and saying, "I have ALL of the AAWSAP data. Come to Vegas and I'll let you see it all.") Doocy: "But, we should stress, again, officials do not know what the objects are in these videos that are gonna go wide online after this report." Kilmeade: "Now they don't know, Peter, but do you know? Doocy: "[long pause] Can't say." [All laugh. I like the comedy.] Jones: "Well played." Kilmeade: I would check a burn bag in the FBI building. Jones: "Right, exactly." Earhardt: "He used to know, he wiped the record. They just look like white dots to me. I mean, How do we know that's not a drone?" Kilmeade: "Well, it's the 50s." Earhardt: "I know, but they're just like, white dots." (Exactly. Interesting, but it will NOT move the needle with the masses. We have no idea what those white dots represent and they're not making any incredible maneuvers. But it's still coverage of UFOs on a national news show that has a lot of viewers who aren't into UFOs, like us. So, not a bad thing.) Doocy: "Well, the one clip is from a guy in 1952, and so you look at a lot of this stuff now. It's like, oh well, maybe that's a lens flare, maybe it's a hobbyist, maybe it's a weather balloon. But in 1952, there was not a lot of stuff up in the sky. And so, when you look at a video like this, yes, it is old, but it kind of creates a decades-long storyline. We know that these are things that have been a curiosity of humans on Earth for generations, and this is why. And this is a really clear clip that puts into focus - clearer focus, 4K - what some of these guys were...said that they were seeing." (Excellent summary and context by Doocy.) Earhardt: "Were you able to look through the expense report? What are some of the expenses? How'd they spend $22 million dollars?" Kilmeade: "Wow." Earhardt: "And there are no records?" Jones: "Nothing to show for it." Doocy: "I've got it. It's 59 pages long, and some of the stuff is still blocked out. But you know it's got dates. A lot of the stuff is 2008 and 2009. $2.8 million dollars, $3.6 million dollars, $2.1 million dollars. It's a well-respected government contractor (Bigelow's company, BAASS) that was doing this." (I have ChatGPT trying to find this 59-page document and so far it has struck out. We know they had 50 full time investigators over a 27-month period and they all had to be paid. Plus, they had to retrofit buildings in case they received classified UAP-related materials, allegedly from Lockheed, or elsewhere. And, in 2021, I was told the DIRDs cost $15,000 a piece or $570,000 for all 38 studies.) Doocy: "And again, it was Harry Reid out in Nevada who had an interest in UFOs because there are a lot of sightings out there. Harry Reid is the one who got the $22 million dollars of government money appropriated for this." (Kilmeade scoffs. He should know that it was the late Senators Reid (D), Inouye (D) and Stevens (R) who helped fund AAWSAP to the tune of $22 million. This shouldn't be a partisan issue.) Doocy: "Somebody went and investigated, and the files...they just can't find them. Maybe they will turn up at some point, but it is noteworthy that, given all of the interest and all the money that was spent, that somebody from the West Wing of the White House calls and they can't produce the files." Earhardt: "It disappeared." Kilmeade: "Should check [Reid's] estate. Check Harry Reid's closet." Earhardt: "Or someone's bank account (laughs)." (Or make a phone call to Mr. Bigelow. Long-distance calls are free nowadays. To insinuate that Reid pocketed any of that money is ridiculous, and partisan. Also...apparently, Bigelow spent $1 million of his own money to keep the program going towards the end.) Jones: "They think we're all stupid. The only person that knows is the dead senator, right? I mean, come on. Thanks, Peter." Earhardt: "Very interesting. All right, thank you Peter." Kilmeade: "There's an excellent chance they're gonna be friendly." (Based on what?) Earhardt: "Oh, the aliens?" Kilmeade; "And just tell us what they know. Why are they able to move so quick?"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2101014195387170908/amplify_video_thumb/2101014092253433857/img/9u_HrbbeuMqbGr9M.jpg)
![Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1916273688736940311/amplify_video_thumb/1916261346590515200/img/hUvZMgeSmwtcpp9Y.jpg)
