Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

๐Ÿ”ž[ Blow-job : Xiao x Aether]๐Ÿ”ž Look at those two cuties ~โ™ก ๐ŸŽจ : jae ๐Ÿ”ž 3D animations ๐Ÿˆณ <3 Aether: Tarrot Bunny <3 Xiao : Me #Xiao | #Aether | #GenshinImacpt | #NSFW | #nsfwaudio

Asuka_ASMR's profile picture

AsukaVA ๐Ÿ”ž | ENG | GER

60,285 subscribers

186,296 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 3 Monaten โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

NSFW#Xiao#Aether#GenshinImacpt#NSFW#nsfwaudio
LIVE

Anya Rossiโ€ข Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfรผgbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

ร„hnliche Videos

Huehuehue my meow meows ๐Ÿ˜ญ Inspired by one of carrot๐Ÿฅ•,๐Ÿ‘น๐ŸŒค๐Ÿ”ž,๐Ÿ๐Ÿ’ซ comics bc yeah ๐Ÿ—ฟ I love shy Xiao but I also love bold Xiao and embarrassed Aether ok, thank u #xiaother #xiaoae #XiaoAether
0:32

Sensitive content

Huehuehue my meow meows ๐Ÿ˜ญ Inspired by one of carrot๐Ÿฅ•,๐Ÿ‘น๐ŸŒค๐Ÿ”ž,๐Ÿ๐Ÿ’ซ comics bc yeah ๐Ÿ—ฟ I love shy Xiao but I also love bold Xiao and embarrassed Aether ok, thank u #xiaother #xiaoae #XiaoAether

Azoth ๐Ÿ๐Ÿพ

164,958 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 3 Jahren

so pent up today.. join me? toy use <3 nsfw audio, male whimpering & moaning ๐Ÿ”ž #nsfwaudio #nsfwtwt
1:27

Sensitive content

so pent up today.. join me? toy use <3 nsfw audio, male whimpering & moaning ๐Ÿ”ž #nsfwaudio #nsfwtwt

wolvboi ๐Ÿ‘… feral mic howler ๐Ÿบ

271,371 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

Cranes are really good at gripping ๐ŸŽ™๏ธFeaturing๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Cloud Retainer: ๐“‹น ั‚ฯƒะบฮน ๐“‹น| ๐“ข ษนฬถวฬถqฬถnฬถส‡ฬถสŒฬถ sฬถแด‰ฬถqฬถnฬถuฬถโฑฏฬถ ๐“ƒฃ Aether: Me!! (MythosVA) SFX Pack: PointyAux ๐Ÿ”ž NSFW Sound Designer & ๐“‹น ั‚ฯƒะบฮน ๐“‹น| ๐“ข ษนฬถวฬถqฬถnฬถส‡ฬถสŒฬถ sฬถแด‰ฬถqฬถnฬถuฬถโฑฏฬถ ๐“ƒฃ Editing: Me!! ๐ŸŽจARTIST๐ŸŽจ Nyantcha #nsfwtwt #nsfwva
2:17

Sensitive content

Cranes are really good at gripping ๐ŸŽ™๏ธFeaturing๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Cloud Retainer: ๐“‹น ั‚ฯƒะบฮน ๐“‹น| ๐“ข ษนฬถวฬถqฬถnฬถส‡ฬถสŒฬถ sฬถแด‰ฬถqฬถnฬถuฬถโฑฏฬถ ๐“ƒฃ Aether: Me!! (MythosVA) SFX Pack: PointyAux ๐Ÿ”ž NSFW Sound Designer & ๐“‹น ั‚ฯƒะบฮน ๐“‹น| ๐“ข ษนฬถวฬถqฬถnฬถส‡ฬถสŒฬถ sฬถแด‰ฬถqฬถnฬถuฬถโฑฏฬถ ๐“ƒฃ Editing: Me!! ๐ŸŽจARTIST๐ŸŽจ Nyantcha #nsfwtwt #nsfwva

MythosVA

390,591 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 2 Jahren

A giant thank you to ๐Ÿ”žHorntfrog๐Ÿ”ž for letting me add voice and sound to one of their amazing animations! <3
1:08

A giant thank you to ๐Ÿ”žHorntfrog๐Ÿ”ž for letting me add voice and sound to one of their amazing animations! <3

๐Ÿ”ž Levi ๐Ÿ–ค

102,394 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 3 Jahren

ANOTHER NEW PINNED YAYYY YYAYYY YAYYY โ‚ŠหšโŠนโ™ก cal/aether โŠน they/he โŠน i witewwy like art #ok? #ok... โŠน credit me if u use my art. preferably no reposts but i have no power over that lolol โŠน dni shedtwt+pro/com/all that other dumb shit i will block yew <3
0:34

ANOTHER NEW PINNED YAYYY YYAYYY YAYYY โ‚ŠหšโŠนโ™ก cal/aether โŠน they/he โŠน i witewwy like art #ok? #ok... โŠน credit me if u use my art. preferably no reposts but i have no power over that lolol โŠน dni shedtwt+pro/com/all that other dumb shit i will block yew <3

โค๏ธ ยปโ€“calโ€“โ€บ ๐Ÿ’š

19,954 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 6 Monaten

Happy Holidays from me and my OC Jill! Thank you all for the support you've given over this past year! Here's to 2025 being even bigger than this year. <3 Jill VA: Mimi Hung ๐Ÿ’š๐ŸŒท๐Ÿ”žNSFW VA and Sound Designer Tiny VA: ๐Ÿฐvelvetlily๐Ÿ€Hiatus Additional Sound Design: Peculiar Musician (Pecu) #giantess #ๅทจๅคงๅจ˜ #sizetwitter
2:07

Sensitive content

Happy Holidays from me and my OC Jill! Thank you all for the support you've given over this past year! Here's to 2025 being even bigger than this year. <3 Jill VA: Mimi Hung ๐Ÿ’š๐ŸŒท๐Ÿ”žNSFW VA and Sound Designer Tiny VA: ๐Ÿฐvelvetlily๐Ÿ€Hiatus Additional Sound Design: Peculiar Musician (Pecu) #giantess #ๅทจๅคงๅจ˜ #sizetwitter

Macromancer

133,794 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

Thought experiment for people regarding the concept of Absolute Time. Absolute means NO EXCEPTIONS. We are NOT looking back in time when we see galaxies and stars. We are NOT looking back in time 1.25 seconds when we see the moon. We're Not looking back in time 3 minutes when we see Mars. We're Not looking back in time 8.33 minutes when we see the Sun. If an astronaut lit a matchstick on Mars, the distant observer would see predator heat waves at the top of the matchstick in real-time while the matchstick started to blacken towards the astronaut's fingers. But there would be no orange light from that chemical reaction or flame seen. If the matchstick burnt out before the packet of orange light from that particular chemical reaction made it to Earthโ€ฆ then the distant observer would just see a disembodied orange flash of light with a lag. But the Earth-bound observer would never actually see the flame associated with the orange wavelength it put out. The wavelength of color emitted by the flame is not a recording of reality. If the orange light is 650 Thz, that means there are 650 trillion individual and separate bursts of orange light pulsating in 1 second. NOT that "the same light" is "waving" 650 trillion times a second and that light is a recording of reality. There are 650 trillion brand-new lights flashing in 1 second. Each Hertz is a brand-new emission and packet unto itself. Time does not re-emit 650 trillion times a second, nor is a photon a particle or a packet of reality acting like the frame of a reel of footage. The orange light that already left the flame will continue to propagate out until it meets the electrons making up the distant observer. But remember, it is never the same light within that packet. And the electrons making up the observer will absorb all of those different lights within that packet and re-emit brand-new lights that produce the product of illumination. A photon is a massless packet of energy, spherically expanding at the rate of c from the source it comes from. Illumination is the result of that energy being absorbed and RE-emitted by any other electrons that did not output that primary packet. But time is not associated with the same light. It's never the same light and time does not re-emit between packets. Time is not relative. Do NOT allow your mind Carte Blanche to think along the lines of relative time. DROP IT for this thought experiment. We are thinking along the lines of ABSOLUTE TIME/ Galilean VARIANCE. What does absolute time mean? It means time is constant in ALL frames of reference. Any frequency shifts between atomic clocks IS a literal change in the speed of light. But relativity forbids the speed of light from Ever changing, so relativity (Lorentz INVARIANCE) invented the concept of the 4th dimension and space-time. Because Relativity doesn't allow light speed to shift.. they interpret the same frequency shift between atomic clocks as being conclusive, irrefutable evidence that time and reality itself shifts. Rather than say it's just that ONE clock being affected by Earth's gravity and the oscillation of that ONE cesium clock is being altered compared to other clocks. People don't realize that in relativity... time dilation is SYMMETRICAL! Not even most relativists know their own theory. If Clock A and Clock B are synchronized and together... and then they accelerate apart... Einstein said Clock A would see Clock B as being slower itself. And Clock B would view Clock A as slower than ITself. NOT that only one observer would see back in time and the other would see forward or not at all. No... BOTH observers are supposed to see each other BACK in time relative to each other according to Einstein and the consequence of the math. It doesn't make ANY sense!! But relativists toss that part of time dilation under their 4th dimensional rug. The rug is woven from threads of gold that only the smart people can see apparently. So... here's a thought experiment/ Gedankenexperiment for absolute time. NO paradoxes... no nonsense or confusion. What do you see in a club? You see disco lights changing and a color wheel effect. You see everyone in REAL-TIME. Not just because they are so close to the lights. Light is not a recording of reality. Light is simply color. Illuminating reality in a certain color. Just because you can't see something yet or the color hasn't reached you doesn't mean it isn't happening in real-time. Zoom out and look at the people in the club through binoculars a mile away. You are still looking at them in real-time. The colors are shifting with a delay in the club. Now look at the club through a telescope from the surface of the moon. You're still looking at the people in real-time. But now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 1.25 seconds because it takes light 1.25 seconds to travel from the Earth to the moon. Now look at the club through an even bigger telescope from the surface of Mars. You're still looking at the people in real-time, but now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 3 minutes because it takes light 3 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars. fr you are a third hypothetical observer zoomed out and watching the person from Mars AND seeing the club on Earth... you're still seeing everything happening in real-time as well. But you see the colored wavepackets traveling with a delay to the observer on Mars. And the disco color wheel effect is just lagging before it affects the observer from Mars and the observer on the Moon. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out! There is only now to observe. But there WILL be a lag and delay for a given color/wavepacket to reach distant observers. But all points in space are already illuminated by other starlight. So if you're too far away... you'll just see the club in real-time but without any disco lights. Just see them in white light because that's the source already illuminating the scene. This is where it gets the most difficult because people think light itself is a recording of reality that replays a scene from where it came from. But another punch in the gut of relativity is that in order to see REFLECTED light... that would require a TWO-WAY transit. Which means the light would have to be sent out... record the scene of a distant event and then RETURN in order to REplay the event. Which means it would take 6 minutes to see the club from Mars by that logic and 2.5 seconds to see the club from the moon by that logic. The difference in tick rates between clocks has NOTHING to do with time dilation. Wait.. what?! How can that be? Because a clock itself doesn't represent all of time and reality. The difference between clocks is a "Transverse relative time shift." If the only light in the universe was from the lighterโ€ฆ the only way a distant observer would be able to see the astronaut on Mars is if the astronaut held down the button of the lighter for longer than 3 minutes. It takes 3 minutes for the packet of light to travel from Mars to Earth. The distant observer would never be able to see Mars, unless the light stretched from Mars all the way to Earth, and illuminated the path between Mars and Earth. And that would take 3 minutes for the boundary and first part of that wave packet to reach Earth. But if the distant observer wanted to observe Mars in real-timeโ€ฆ then that packet of light would have to be on for longer than 3 minutes. So if the astronaut on Mars flicked the lighter at 12:00, the distant observer on Earth wouldn't see anything until 12:03. If the light was on for 3 minutes and 10 seconds, and the distant observer is 3 light minutes away... ๏ฟผthe distant observer would be able to see Mars in real-time for 10 seconds starting at 12:03. In the 20 second video clip of the rotating planet with shifting colors... just imagine you're a couple light minutes or light seconds away. You're still seeing the planet spin in real-time. But there is simply a delay of switching colors. You are Not looking back in time. It's just a color wheel effect from a great distance away. That's it!! There are many major flaws which tarnish people's critical thinking on this thought experiment. 1. Light does NOT ricochet or bounce. Electrons absorb, emit and re-emit ALL electromagnetic radiation. The electrons, making up the glass of a mirror will absorb the incoming light and re-emit a brand-new light as an equal and opposite reaction. NOT that "the same light" bounced off the mirror and continued on within the same frame of reference. ๏ฟผ 2. Light is NOT a recording of reality. 3. It is NOT the same light being observed from a source. It's never the same light. Each Hertz is a new light. Think of half of a sine wave as being its own emission. On an oscilloscope, a stimulus generates a peak which initiates an equal and opposite trough. Or vice versa. That repeating process is not "the same light." If you cut and paste that sine wave to another sine wave, the boundary between the waves will always be in phase. (thus refraction) 4. The speed of light is NOT the same in ALL frames of reference, no matter what. 5. Light is NOT made of particles and waves that flip back-and-forth. 6. Time is NOT connected to the speed of light. Time remains constant regardless if you accelerate towards or away from a clock. The clocks themselves will indeed be off! But that's an affect on the electrons making up the atomic clock affecting the oscillation of the isotope which is ASSUMED to ALWAYS be the same. So ANY difference in oscillation is treated as a literal distortion in space-time. 7. Space and time are not linked at all. That is a mathematical artifice under Lorentz invariance. Time is relative under Lorentz invariance. But time is absolute under Galilean VARIANCE. When people hear or see the word GALILEAN... their brains switch to auto pilot to "aether theory" and "classical physics." What people don't realize is that aether theory used Galilean INVARIANCE. Rather than space-time being used as an excuse to explain the difference in frequencies between atomic clocks... it was originally aether being used as an excuse to keep the speed of light the same. But None of those things are valid! We are thinking under the framework of Galilean VARIANCE! Completely new revolutionary model returning to Isaac Newton and Classical physics but without the corpuscular theory (particle) theory for light... without a particle-wave duality... without an aether... without a 4th dimension. Just good ol elementary math within 3D Euclidean space. Everything happening in real-time, right now. This reformulation of Galilean transformations was offered by Dr. Edward Dowdye in 1991 called The Extinction Shift Principle. Effectivity as opposed to Relativity. If light required a two-way transit, in order to travel outโ€ฆ Record an event, and travel back to replay the recordingโ€ฆ ๏ฟผ then it would take 6 minutes to see the astronaut on Mars instead of 3. ๏ฟผ Rememberโ€ฆ They say the SAME light is a recording, and must travel there and travel back in order to REplay. Relativity says time is relative: t' โ‰  t time is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and t = tโ‚’ / โˆš1 - vยฒ/cยฒ but Galilean Variance says time is not relative: t' = t (Time IS the same from all frames of reference) and ฯ„_tr = ฯ„โ‚’ / โˆš1 - vยฒ/cยฒ Relativity says c' = c (The velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference) but Galilean variance says c' โ‰  c (The velocity of light is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and that c' = c ยฑ v (The velocity of light in one frame of reference is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer in another frame of reference. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer) Relativity says E = mcยฒ (Energy and mass are universally equivalent and literally interchangeable under All conditions.) but Galilean variance says E = ฮ”mcยฒ = mโ‚’cยฒ (Energy changes in a system are the result from changes in mass. mโ‚’ represents the original mass. Mass and energy do not literally interchange. There is an equivalence, not an interchange.) The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity Star light and illumination: Flicking a Lighter on Mars visual example:
0:21

Thought experiment for people regarding the concept of Absolute Time. Absolute means NO EXCEPTIONS. We are NOT looking back in time when we see galaxies and stars. We are NOT looking back in time 1.25 seconds when we see the moon. We're Not looking back in time 3 minutes when we see Mars. We're Not looking back in time 8.33 minutes when we see the Sun. If an astronaut lit a matchstick on Mars, the distant observer would see predator heat waves at the top of the matchstick in real-time while the matchstick started to blacken towards the astronaut's fingers. But there would be no orange light from that chemical reaction or flame seen. If the matchstick burnt out before the packet of orange light from that particular chemical reaction made it to Earthโ€ฆ then the distant observer would just see a disembodied orange flash of light with a lag. But the Earth-bound observer would never actually see the flame associated with the orange wavelength it put out. The wavelength of color emitted by the flame is not a recording of reality. If the orange light is 650 Thz, that means there are 650 trillion individual and separate bursts of orange light pulsating in 1 second. NOT that "the same light" is "waving" 650 trillion times a second and that light is a recording of reality. There are 650 trillion brand-new lights flashing in 1 second. Each Hertz is a brand-new emission and packet unto itself. Time does not re-emit 650 trillion times a second, nor is a photon a particle or a packet of reality acting like the frame of a reel of footage. The orange light that already left the flame will continue to propagate out until it meets the electrons making up the distant observer. But remember, it is never the same light within that packet. And the electrons making up the observer will absorb all of those different lights within that packet and re-emit brand-new lights that produce the product of illumination. A photon is a massless packet of energy, spherically expanding at the rate of c from the source it comes from. Illumination is the result of that energy being absorbed and RE-emitted by any other electrons that did not output that primary packet. But time is not associated with the same light. It's never the same light and time does not re-emit between packets. Time is not relative. Do NOT allow your mind Carte Blanche to think along the lines of relative time. DROP IT for this thought experiment. We are thinking along the lines of ABSOLUTE TIME/ Galilean VARIANCE. What does absolute time mean? It means time is constant in ALL frames of reference. Any frequency shifts between atomic clocks IS a literal change in the speed of light. But relativity forbids the speed of light from Ever changing, so relativity (Lorentz INVARIANCE) invented the concept of the 4th dimension and space-time. Because Relativity doesn't allow light speed to shift.. they interpret the same frequency shift between atomic clocks as being conclusive, irrefutable evidence that time and reality itself shifts. Rather than say it's just that ONE clock being affected by Earth's gravity and the oscillation of that ONE cesium clock is being altered compared to other clocks. People don't realize that in relativity... time dilation is SYMMETRICAL! Not even most relativists know their own theory. If Clock A and Clock B are synchronized and together... and then they accelerate apart... Einstein said Clock A would see Clock B as being slower itself. And Clock B would view Clock A as slower than ITself. NOT that only one observer would see back in time and the other would see forward or not at all. No... BOTH observers are supposed to see each other BACK in time relative to each other according to Einstein and the consequence of the math. It doesn't make ANY sense!! But relativists toss that part of time dilation under their 4th dimensional rug. The rug is woven from threads of gold that only the smart people can see apparently. So... here's a thought experiment/ Gedankenexperiment for absolute time. NO paradoxes... no nonsense or confusion. What do you see in a club? You see disco lights changing and a color wheel effect. You see everyone in REAL-TIME. Not just because they are so close to the lights. Light is not a recording of reality. Light is simply color. Illuminating reality in a certain color. Just because you can't see something yet or the color hasn't reached you doesn't mean it isn't happening in real-time. Zoom out and look at the people in the club through binoculars a mile away. You are still looking at them in real-time. The colors are shifting with a delay in the club. Now look at the club through a telescope from the surface of the moon. You're still looking at the people in real-time. But now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 1.25 seconds because it takes light 1.25 seconds to travel from the Earth to the moon. Now look at the club through an even bigger telescope from the surface of Mars. You're still looking at the people in real-time, but now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 3 minutes because it takes light 3 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars. fr you are a third hypothetical observer zoomed out and watching the person from Mars AND seeing the club on Earth... you're still seeing everything happening in real-time as well. But you see the colored wavepackets traveling with a delay to the observer on Mars. And the disco color wheel effect is just lagging before it affects the observer from Mars and the observer on the Moon. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out! There is only now to observe. But there WILL be a lag and delay for a given color/wavepacket to reach distant observers. But all points in space are already illuminated by other starlight. So if you're too far away... you'll just see the club in real-time but without any disco lights. Just see them in white light because that's the source already illuminating the scene. This is where it gets the most difficult because people think light itself is a recording of reality that replays a scene from where it came from. But another punch in the gut of relativity is that in order to see REFLECTED light... that would require a TWO-WAY transit. Which means the light would have to be sent out... record the scene of a distant event and then RETURN in order to REplay the event. Which means it would take 6 minutes to see the club from Mars by that logic and 2.5 seconds to see the club from the moon by that logic. The difference in tick rates between clocks has NOTHING to do with time dilation. Wait.. what?! How can that be? Because a clock itself doesn't represent all of time and reality. The difference between clocks is a "Transverse relative time shift." If the only light in the universe was from the lighterโ€ฆ the only way a distant observer would be able to see the astronaut on Mars is if the astronaut held down the button of the lighter for longer than 3 minutes. It takes 3 minutes for the packet of light to travel from Mars to Earth. The distant observer would never be able to see Mars, unless the light stretched from Mars all the way to Earth, and illuminated the path between Mars and Earth. And that would take 3 minutes for the boundary and first part of that wave packet to reach Earth. But if the distant observer wanted to observe Mars in real-timeโ€ฆ then that packet of light would have to be on for longer than 3 minutes. So if the astronaut on Mars flicked the lighter at 12:00, the distant observer on Earth wouldn't see anything until 12:03. If the light was on for 3 minutes and 10 seconds, and the distant observer is 3 light minutes away... ๏ฟผthe distant observer would be able to see Mars in real-time for 10 seconds starting at 12:03. In the 20 second video clip of the rotating planet with shifting colors... just imagine you're a couple light minutes or light seconds away. You're still seeing the planet spin in real-time. But there is simply a delay of switching colors. You are Not looking back in time. It's just a color wheel effect from a great distance away. That's it!! There are many major flaws which tarnish people's critical thinking on this thought experiment. 1. Light does NOT ricochet or bounce. Electrons absorb, emit and re-emit ALL electromagnetic radiation. The electrons, making up the glass of a mirror will absorb the incoming light and re-emit a brand-new light as an equal and opposite reaction. NOT that "the same light" bounced off the mirror and continued on within the same frame of reference. ๏ฟผ 2. Light is NOT a recording of reality. 3. It is NOT the same light being observed from a source. It's never the same light. Each Hertz is a new light. Think of half of a sine wave as being its own emission. On an oscilloscope, a stimulus generates a peak which initiates an equal and opposite trough. Or vice versa. That repeating process is not "the same light." If you cut and paste that sine wave to another sine wave, the boundary between the waves will always be in phase. (thus refraction) 4. The speed of light is NOT the same in ALL frames of reference, no matter what. 5. Light is NOT made of particles and waves that flip back-and-forth. 6. Time is NOT connected to the speed of light. Time remains constant regardless if you accelerate towards or away from a clock. The clocks themselves will indeed be off! But that's an affect on the electrons making up the atomic clock affecting the oscillation of the isotope which is ASSUMED to ALWAYS be the same. So ANY difference in oscillation is treated as a literal distortion in space-time. 7. Space and time are not linked at all. That is a mathematical artifice under Lorentz invariance. Time is relative under Lorentz invariance. But time is absolute under Galilean VARIANCE. When people hear or see the word GALILEAN... their brains switch to auto pilot to "aether theory" and "classical physics." What people don't realize is that aether theory used Galilean INVARIANCE. Rather than space-time being used as an excuse to explain the difference in frequencies between atomic clocks... it was originally aether being used as an excuse to keep the speed of light the same. But None of those things are valid! We are thinking under the framework of Galilean VARIANCE! Completely new revolutionary model returning to Isaac Newton and Classical physics but without the corpuscular theory (particle) theory for light... without a particle-wave duality... without an aether... without a 4th dimension. Just good ol elementary math within 3D Euclidean space. Everything happening in real-time, right now. This reformulation of Galilean transformations was offered by Dr. Edward Dowdye in 1991 called The Extinction Shift Principle. Effectivity as opposed to Relativity. If light required a two-way transit, in order to travel outโ€ฆ Record an event, and travel back to replay the recordingโ€ฆ ๏ฟผ then it would take 6 minutes to see the astronaut on Mars instead of 3. ๏ฟผ Rememberโ€ฆ They say the SAME light is a recording, and must travel there and travel back in order to REplay. Relativity says time is relative: t' โ‰  t time is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and t = tโ‚’ / โˆš1 - vยฒ/cยฒ but Galilean Variance says time is not relative: t' = t (Time IS the same from all frames of reference) and ฯ„_tr = ฯ„โ‚’ / โˆš1 - vยฒ/cยฒ Relativity says c' = c (The velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference) but Galilean variance says c' โ‰  c (The velocity of light is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and that c' = c ยฑ v (The velocity of light in one frame of reference is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer in another frame of reference. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer) Relativity says E = mcยฒ (Energy and mass are universally equivalent and literally interchangeable under All conditions.) but Galilean variance says E = ฮ”mcยฒ = mโ‚’cยฒ (Energy changes in a system are the result from changes in mass. mโ‚’ represents the original mass. Mass and energy do not literally interchange. There is an equivalence, not an interchange.) The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity Star light and illumination: Flicking a Lighter on Mars visual example:

TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)

16,608 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

HOW THE HOLOGRAPHIC SIMULATION WORKS (Update 12/11/24) Your โ€˜realityโ€™ is a holographic projection that comes from your own eyes that are not like camera lenses, but literally projection lenses. How it works is complex, but here is the actual science. There is no such thing as material matter. It takes energy to cast something into fully visible 'solid' form (still a hologram). So as shown in Kirlian photography (spectrography) that shows the aura of things, you can see that even if you cut part of a leaf away, there is still an energy you normally won't see with your eyes that casts out the 'solid' form of that thing within the simulation that clearly appears through the camera. That part of the leaf is "gone", yet the energy field of that shape is still there. See video below: ๐Ÿ‘‰ The Phantom Leaf in Kirlian Photography. The phantom part of the leaf is the plasma body, or 'ghost' energy field, and the physical leaf is merely a holographic expression of what the thing should appear as. These two things, while totally integrated normally, are not dependent on each other to still exist. Ghosts that are disembodied still have their energetic light body essence; they just can't assemble the 'physical' part of it anymore. So they can't touch things, taste things, or experience life, all they can do now is watch it around them. That is, unless they go to the astral fields where they can materialize there, but those are artificial worlds the invader races have set up as honeypot traps for the disembodied to now produce loosh for them, just as they are doing to manifest beings here in the looking glass simulation. You built this simulation called a time matrix. Other fractals of your collective of Prime Creator (you can think of as bratty siblings) came along and set up a new simulation nested within this 'organic' one in order to trick you so they can harvest your energy. This is in the way of your light body power, as well as in using you to funnel vast wealth to them through taxes, taxes and more taxes. They also eat your kids (more taxes). The way the hologram is actually projected around you is through projector lenses we call our eyes we think allow us to โ€˜seeโ€™. In reality it is our pineal gland that sees and our eyes merely project our inclusion into the shared reality scape before us so others can see us. And while that might seem impossible to understand, this is how anything within the simulation materializes. Eyes are not camera lenses as touched on above. The optical lenses that stack up inside the pupil are the same convex-to-concave as projection lenses are arranged. They literally cannot 'see' something, they can only project images. In quantum science experiments, such as the Double Slit, it is proven that the aether does not materialize before you the simulation of molecular 'matter' unless the scientist is looking at the experiment. Then that experiment only functions according to the preconception of that particular scientist. The same test run by two different people reveals two different actions. That's because these are two different realities. Yours and theirs. We all live in our own unique worlds, and agree on things like 'leaves are green'. But in reality, my green might be your purple. It is a shared reality field made up of different but complimentary worlds. How you really see is through the 3rd eye pineal gland as mentioned earlier. Naturally the ancients knew this eons ago -now engraved, painted and depicted all across ancient Egypt-. It has the clear ability to see 360 degrees around you what it is you expect to see in that precise spot on earth because the spacetime fabric is holding the colors, shapes and outlines of every leaf and tree and blade of grass that is supposed to be "there" according to all the other people around you that are projecting the same image in the same designated spot, and because you are now looking in that direction, you can see it. Your pineal gland now sends that live image down to your heart with your own body now blended into that same picture where you weren't previously standing, because you don't actually have a body to 'stand' anywhere. The heart hears that signal, then reduces it to a song that pulsates out to all the aether microcrystals around you and suddenly your image will be imprinted or outlined in the air where the spacetime fabric holds your plasma field. The aether particles that hold this shape in the spacetime fabric are called X and Y bosons (also called W and Z bosons, depending on the white paper) that hold the square points within each pixel of the 'fabric' that Higgs bosons now light up according to where that leaf is supposed to be. The Higgs boson is YOUR projected holographic beam. At the same time your pineal gland sends the signal to the heart to alert the aether to your 'reality' of joining the shared reality field, now it also sends a signal through your optic nerve (optic fiber) that connects in a 45 degree angle from your pineal gland to your projector lenses and completes the 'solid' image of your body inside the spacetime fabric halo that's already there thanks to your heart. You are the Higgs boson science calls the god particle. What your eyes cast out before you is merely the holographic insertion of your own body as it interacts within the projection, making it seem like a solid, material version of your body now walking, and interacting with, the rest of the projected holograms as displayed by the spacetime fabric. In case you didnโ€™t think the spacetime fabric is a โ€˜realโ€™ thing, here is actual photographs taken of our invisible projector screens by scientists at CERN. Just because this is advanced holographic technology doesn't mean it cannot possibly work in such an unheard-of way. Remember, the spacetime fabric has to be triangulated, just like 3D holographic projections, in order for it to show you a fluid, 3D moving image. That triangulation is the X vector boson, the Y gauge boson and you, the Higgs boson. Three points of consciousness working together to project or 'insert' you into the holodeck. Like you, each fractal of Prime Creator around you are all projecting themselves into that shared field, so it makes it feel like this is a real-time, physical, place. But if you ask quantum physics if a falling tree makes a sound in the forest but no one is around to hear it, they will tell you not only does it not make a sound, the forest literally does not exist until a sentient being casts it into reality. The same can be said about you. Unless you are walking down that sidewalk, your shoes arenโ€™t clicking, making a sound as your heels hit the pavement. Plus the pavement wonโ€™t even be there if you donโ€™t project it into reality and no one else is around. You will learn that science takes an adamant stance that there is no such thing as static matter. All things blink on and off at a super-fast rate that cannot be detected by the eye. This is the cadence of the spacetime fabric known as the FLASHLINE SEQUENCE that operates on a shared โ€˜drum beatโ€™ to keep the simulation harmonically tuned we call the Schumann Resonance, 7.83Hz rhythm. When you intend to โ€˜walkโ€™, you flash onto one spacetime fabric screen, you flash off for a brief moment, then a few inches ahead of where you just were, you flash on a 'forward' screen, giving the illusion you are traveling. The fire plug isnโ€™t moving, so it appears like you are walking past it, giving you the sensation of actually walking from A to B. Each pixel of each spacetime fabric, sandwiched on top of each other as many as millions of sheets per inch, have a vector or IP address within the simulation. So the X and Y bosons holding the space of that pixel can be triangulated by scalar positioning by a scientist from anywhere in the world. Every vector and gauge boson and every pixel can be mapped from any other point within the simulation. We have those IP addresses, and when a time craft wants to go somewhere else, their destination is one of those pixels that will act as the zero point of the craft where it will suddenly appear next. Like you, the craft never moves, it simply resonates with a different vibration that is โ€˜over thereโ€™. But like your video screen youโ€™re looking at now, all things exist on the same sheet of glass, depending on which spacetime fabric you want to see. YOU cast yourself onto the spacetime fabric, otherwise your holographic โ€˜bodyโ€™ simply doesnโ€™t exist. And THAT is done by your intent. That is why you can manifest any reality you want to see, as described in โ€˜The Secretโ€™. If you WANT to see a different, or better reality, you merely have to think of that reality until you find yourself there. For more on this topic, see my articles: ๐Ÿ‘‰ MANIFESTING YOUR GOALS ๐Ÿ‘‰ CASTING THE APOCOLYPSE ๐Ÿ‘‰ CASTING A BETTER REALITY On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: & my username in parenthesis such as shown here: MANIFESTING YOUR GOALS (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings by through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.
3:04

HOW THE HOLOGRAPHIC SIMULATION WORKS (Update 12/11/24) Your โ€˜realityโ€™ is a holographic projection that comes from your own eyes that are not like camera lenses, but literally projection lenses. How it works is complex, but here is the actual science. There is no such thing as material matter. It takes energy to cast something into fully visible 'solid' form (still a hologram). So as shown in Kirlian photography (spectrography) that shows the aura of things, you can see that even if you cut part of a leaf away, there is still an energy you normally won't see with your eyes that casts out the 'solid' form of that thing within the simulation that clearly appears through the camera. That part of the leaf is "gone", yet the energy field of that shape is still there. See video below: ๐Ÿ‘‰ The Phantom Leaf in Kirlian Photography. The phantom part of the leaf is the plasma body, or 'ghost' energy field, and the physical leaf is merely a holographic expression of what the thing should appear as. These two things, while totally integrated normally, are not dependent on each other to still exist. Ghosts that are disembodied still have their energetic light body essence; they just can't assemble the 'physical' part of it anymore. So they can't touch things, taste things, or experience life, all they can do now is watch it around them. That is, unless they go to the astral fields where they can materialize there, but those are artificial worlds the invader races have set up as honeypot traps for the disembodied to now produce loosh for them, just as they are doing to manifest beings here in the looking glass simulation. You built this simulation called a time matrix. Other fractals of your collective of Prime Creator (you can think of as bratty siblings) came along and set up a new simulation nested within this 'organic' one in order to trick you so they can harvest your energy. This is in the way of your light body power, as well as in using you to funnel vast wealth to them through taxes, taxes and more taxes. They also eat your kids (more taxes). The way the hologram is actually projected around you is through projector lenses we call our eyes we think allow us to โ€˜seeโ€™. In reality it is our pineal gland that sees and our eyes merely project our inclusion into the shared reality scape before us so others can see us. And while that might seem impossible to understand, this is how anything within the simulation materializes. Eyes are not camera lenses as touched on above. The optical lenses that stack up inside the pupil are the same convex-to-concave as projection lenses are arranged. They literally cannot 'see' something, they can only project images. In quantum science experiments, such as the Double Slit, it is proven that the aether does not materialize before you the simulation of molecular 'matter' unless the scientist is looking at the experiment. Then that experiment only functions according to the preconception of that particular scientist. The same test run by two different people reveals two different actions. That's because these are two different realities. Yours and theirs. We all live in our own unique worlds, and agree on things like 'leaves are green'. But in reality, my green might be your purple. It is a shared reality field made up of different but complimentary worlds. How you really see is through the 3rd eye pineal gland as mentioned earlier. Naturally the ancients knew this eons ago -now engraved, painted and depicted all across ancient Egypt-. It has the clear ability to see 360 degrees around you what it is you expect to see in that precise spot on earth because the spacetime fabric is holding the colors, shapes and outlines of every leaf and tree and blade of grass that is supposed to be "there" according to all the other people around you that are projecting the same image in the same designated spot, and because you are now looking in that direction, you can see it. Your pineal gland now sends that live image down to your heart with your own body now blended into that same picture where you weren't previously standing, because you don't actually have a body to 'stand' anywhere. The heart hears that signal, then reduces it to a song that pulsates out to all the aether microcrystals around you and suddenly your image will be imprinted or outlined in the air where the spacetime fabric holds your plasma field. The aether particles that hold this shape in the spacetime fabric are called X and Y bosons (also called W and Z bosons, depending on the white paper) that hold the square points within each pixel of the 'fabric' that Higgs bosons now light up according to where that leaf is supposed to be. The Higgs boson is YOUR projected holographic beam. At the same time your pineal gland sends the signal to the heart to alert the aether to your 'reality' of joining the shared reality field, now it also sends a signal through your optic nerve (optic fiber) that connects in a 45 degree angle from your pineal gland to your projector lenses and completes the 'solid' image of your body inside the spacetime fabric halo that's already there thanks to your heart. You are the Higgs boson science calls the god particle. What your eyes cast out before you is merely the holographic insertion of your own body as it interacts within the projection, making it seem like a solid, material version of your body now walking, and interacting with, the rest of the projected holograms as displayed by the spacetime fabric. In case you didnโ€™t think the spacetime fabric is a โ€˜realโ€™ thing, here is actual photographs taken of our invisible projector screens by scientists at CERN. Just because this is advanced holographic technology doesn't mean it cannot possibly work in such an unheard-of way. Remember, the spacetime fabric has to be triangulated, just like 3D holographic projections, in order for it to show you a fluid, 3D moving image. That triangulation is the X vector boson, the Y gauge boson and you, the Higgs boson. Three points of consciousness working together to project or 'insert' you into the holodeck. Like you, each fractal of Prime Creator around you are all projecting themselves into that shared field, so it makes it feel like this is a real-time, physical, place. But if you ask quantum physics if a falling tree makes a sound in the forest but no one is around to hear it, they will tell you not only does it not make a sound, the forest literally does not exist until a sentient being casts it into reality. The same can be said about you. Unless you are walking down that sidewalk, your shoes arenโ€™t clicking, making a sound as your heels hit the pavement. Plus the pavement wonโ€™t even be there if you donโ€™t project it into reality and no one else is around. You will learn that science takes an adamant stance that there is no such thing as static matter. All things blink on and off at a super-fast rate that cannot be detected by the eye. This is the cadence of the spacetime fabric known as the FLASHLINE SEQUENCE that operates on a shared โ€˜drum beatโ€™ to keep the simulation harmonically tuned we call the Schumann Resonance, 7.83Hz rhythm. When you intend to โ€˜walkโ€™, you flash onto one spacetime fabric screen, you flash off for a brief moment, then a few inches ahead of where you just were, you flash on a 'forward' screen, giving the illusion you are traveling. The fire plug isnโ€™t moving, so it appears like you are walking past it, giving you the sensation of actually walking from A to B. Each pixel of each spacetime fabric, sandwiched on top of each other as many as millions of sheets per inch, have a vector or IP address within the simulation. So the X and Y bosons holding the space of that pixel can be triangulated by scalar positioning by a scientist from anywhere in the world. Every vector and gauge boson and every pixel can be mapped from any other point within the simulation. We have those IP addresses, and when a time craft wants to go somewhere else, their destination is one of those pixels that will act as the zero point of the craft where it will suddenly appear next. Like you, the craft never moves, it simply resonates with a different vibration that is โ€˜over thereโ€™. But like your video screen youโ€™re looking at now, all things exist on the same sheet of glass, depending on which spacetime fabric you want to see. YOU cast yourself onto the spacetime fabric, otherwise your holographic โ€˜bodyโ€™ simply doesnโ€™t exist. And THAT is done by your intent. That is why you can manifest any reality you want to see, as described in โ€˜The Secretโ€™. If you WANT to see a different, or better reality, you merely have to think of that reality until you find yourself there. For more on this topic, see my articles: ๐Ÿ‘‰ MANIFESTING YOUR GOALS ๐Ÿ‘‰ CASTING THE APOCOLYPSE ๐Ÿ‘‰ CASTING A BETTER REALITY On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: & my username in parenthesis such as shown here: MANIFESTING YOUR GOALS (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings by through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.

W.R. Schock, QBD

211,178 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ”ฅ MUST WATCH: The Interview The Media NEVER Wanted You to See ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Tucker Carlson x Rep. Curt Weldon โ€” Premiered 3 hours ago, and it may go down as one of the most important interviews in modern American history. This isnโ€™t a theory. This isnโ€™t speculation. ๐Ÿ‘‰ This is a 20-year Congressman, a former Vice Chair of the Armed Services Committee, finally breaking his silence. And what he reveals will change everything you thought you knew about 9/11. ๐Ÿงจ Hereโ€™s what youโ€™ll learn in this jaw-dropping interview: ๐Ÿ”ป 1. The Government Knew โ€“ And Hid It โ€ข Weldonโ€™s intel team identified every Al-Qaeda cell, including the NYC one, a full year before 9/11. โ€ข The Pentagonโ€™s Able Danger program tried 3 times to warn the FBIโ€ฆ and were blocked every time. โ€ข The CIA refused to cooperate and shut down efforts to fuse intelligence. โ€ข The DOJ blocked key meetings from taking place. Names are named. ๐Ÿ”ป 2. The 9/11 Commission Was a Lie โ€ข It was never meant to uncover the truth. โ€ข Key witnesses (including Weldon himself, a firefighter and national security leader) were not allowed to testify. โ€ข Philip Zelikow, Condoleezza Riceโ€™s hand-picked commission leader, was personally briefed by Lt. Col. Tony Shafferโ€ฆ then helped destroy Shafferโ€™s life. ๐Ÿ”ป 3. Building 7 and the Controlled Demolition Theory? โ€ข As a fire chief and arson expert, Weldon calls the collapse of WTC 7 โ€œphysically impossibleโ€ without explosives. โ€ข Firefighter Oreo Palmer reached the impact floor and said: โ€œWe have two firesโ€ฆ we can handle them.โ€ โ€ข One minute later: total collapse. Weldon confirms: โ€œThat is not normal. That is not how buildings fall.โ€ ๐Ÿ”ป 4. Osama bin Laden Was inโ€ฆ Iran. โ€ข Four independent sources, including a CIA knock, a falconry expert, and intelligence officials, confirmed bin Laden was not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. โ€ข Weldon: โ€œHe was being treated in an Iranian military hospital. The CIA told me, โ€˜We can neither confirm nor deny.โ€™โ€ โ€ข The man who made the deal to shelter bin Laden? Qasem Soleimani. Thatโ€™s why Trump had him taken out. ๐Ÿ”ป 5. The Cover-Up That Cost Him His Career โ€ข Weldon was about to become Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. โ€ข Days before the 2006 election, the FBI raided his daughterโ€™s home, destroyed her reputation, and never filed charges. โ€ข His opponent was funded by deep state operatives tied to Sandy Berger, the Clintons, and intelligence-connected donors. ๐Ÿ”ป 6. Two 9/11 Hijackers Were On The CIA Payroll โ€ข Weldon has a letter in writing confirming two of the hijackers were recruited and controlled by the CIA โ€” until they lost control of them. โ€ข Afterward, agency staff were reprimandedโ€ฆ but none were exposed. ๐Ÿ”ป 7. A Challenge to President Donald J. Trump Trump: Appoint a Real 9/11 Commission โ€œMr. President, appoint a Presidential Commission. We have the engineers. The architects. The intel. The families. The firefighters. We are ready to testify. Under oath.โ€ This is the biggest scandal in modern American history. ๐Ÿ“Œ You will never look at 9/11 the same again. Watch this now โ€” and then share it like your country depends on it. Because it does. ๐Ÿ‘‡
2:09

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ”ฅ MUST WATCH: The Interview The Media NEVER Wanted You to See ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Tucker Carlson x Rep. Curt Weldon โ€” Premiered 3 hours ago, and it may go down as one of the most important interviews in modern American history. This isnโ€™t a theory. This isnโ€™t speculation. ๐Ÿ‘‰ This is a 20-year Congressman, a former Vice Chair of the Armed Services Committee, finally breaking his silence. And what he reveals will change everything you thought you knew about 9/11. ๐Ÿงจ Hereโ€™s what youโ€™ll learn in this jaw-dropping interview: ๐Ÿ”ป 1. The Government Knew โ€“ And Hid It โ€ข Weldonโ€™s intel team identified every Al-Qaeda cell, including the NYC one, a full year before 9/11. โ€ข The Pentagonโ€™s Able Danger program tried 3 times to warn the FBIโ€ฆ and were blocked every time. โ€ข The CIA refused to cooperate and shut down efforts to fuse intelligence. โ€ข The DOJ blocked key meetings from taking place. Names are named. ๐Ÿ”ป 2. The 9/11 Commission Was a Lie โ€ข It was never meant to uncover the truth. โ€ข Key witnesses (including Weldon himself, a firefighter and national security leader) were not allowed to testify. โ€ข Philip Zelikow, Condoleezza Riceโ€™s hand-picked commission leader, was personally briefed by Lt. Col. Tony Shafferโ€ฆ then helped destroy Shafferโ€™s life. ๐Ÿ”ป 3. Building 7 and the Controlled Demolition Theory? โ€ข As a fire chief and arson expert, Weldon calls the collapse of WTC 7 โ€œphysically impossibleโ€ without explosives. โ€ข Firefighter Oreo Palmer reached the impact floor and said: โ€œWe have two firesโ€ฆ we can handle them.โ€ โ€ข One minute later: total collapse. Weldon confirms: โ€œThat is not normal. That is not how buildings fall.โ€ ๐Ÿ”ป 4. Osama bin Laden Was inโ€ฆ Iran. โ€ข Four independent sources, including a CIA knock, a falconry expert, and intelligence officials, confirmed bin Laden was not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. โ€ข Weldon: โ€œHe was being treated in an Iranian military hospital. The CIA told me, โ€˜We can neither confirm nor deny.โ€™โ€ โ€ข The man who made the deal to shelter bin Laden? Qasem Soleimani. Thatโ€™s why Trump had him taken out. ๐Ÿ”ป 5. The Cover-Up That Cost Him His Career โ€ข Weldon was about to become Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. โ€ข Days before the 2006 election, the FBI raided his daughterโ€™s home, destroyed her reputation, and never filed charges. โ€ข His opponent was funded by deep state operatives tied to Sandy Berger, the Clintons, and intelligence-connected donors. ๐Ÿ”ป 6. Two 9/11 Hijackers Were On The CIA Payroll โ€ข Weldon has a letter in writing confirming two of the hijackers were recruited and controlled by the CIA โ€” until they lost control of them. โ€ข Afterward, agency staff were reprimandedโ€ฆ but none were exposed. ๐Ÿ”ป 7. A Challenge to President Donald J. Trump Trump: Appoint a Real 9/11 Commission โ€œMr. President, appoint a Presidential Commission. We have the engineers. The architects. The intel. The families. The firefighters. We are ready to testify. Under oath.โ€ This is the biggest scandal in modern American history. ๐Ÿ“Œ You will never look at 9/11 the same again. Watch this now โ€” and then share it like your country depends on it. Because it does. ๐Ÿ‘‡

Francois Leclerc

13,251 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

I started using Blender through MCP about two weeks ago, and I quickly realized that you can build almost anything with AI. This model was created using Blender, Hunyuan3D, Gemini, and ChatGPT. Hereโ€™s how I did it: I opened Gemini, uploaded an image of the Gundam model, and asked it to generate a clean front-view image. I uploaded that front view to ChatGPT and asked it to generate two additional angles: a back view and a 45-degree front-left view. I went to: I signed up with my email and translated the page into English. Then I opened Image to 3D and selected the multi-image option. Youโ€™ll see a diagram of a whale from several angles. Upload each reference image in its corresponding position, such as front, 45-degree front-left, and back. I selected the 1.5M-face option. This produces a very high-poly model, but donโ€™t worry, weโ€™ll fix that next. Once the generation is complete, download the model as a GLB file. From the Hunyuan homepage, open 3D Studio using one of the dropdown menus. Select the topology or retopology tool and upload your GLB. I chose the High setting to preserve as much detail as possible. After a few seconds, the model was retopologized. It kept most of its visual detail while using far fewer polygons. The original head and rifle didnโ€™t look very good, so I generated them separately. I returned to ChatGPT and created dedicated reference images for the Gundamโ€™s head and rifle. I generated each part individually in Hunyuan at the 1.5M setting, then ran both through the same retopology process. Next came the textures. Open the texture section, select the multi-image option, and upload the same reference images according to the whale orientation indicators. However, instead of using the original clean textures, I asked ChatGPT to recreate them with wear, rust stains, scratches, and other surface damage. This gave the Gundam a much older and more authentic appearance. Once every part was textured, I imported everything into Blender. You can ask Codex through MCP to remove the original head and rifle, or you can do it manually. Select the main model and press Tab to enter Edit Mode. Press 3 to enable face selection, then press C to activate Circle Select. Paint over the faces belonging to the original helmet or rifle. You can press X to delete those faces or P to separate them into another object. Then position the newly generated, more detailed head and rifle in their place. I demonstrate this process in one of my older videos. And thatโ€™s it. You now have a very cool 3D Gundam model! Afterward, I created the cockpit, separated the model into movable sections, and rigged everything for use in my Three.js game. That process deserves its own tutorial, though. If anyone wants to see it, let me know. Or just ask your AI, I guess. They seem to know everything these days. xD
0:24

I started using Blender through MCP about two weeks ago, and I quickly realized that you can build almost anything with AI. This model was created using Blender, Hunyuan3D, Gemini, and ChatGPT. Hereโ€™s how I did it: I opened Gemini, uploaded an image of the Gundam model, and asked it to generate a clean front-view image. I uploaded that front view to ChatGPT and asked it to generate two additional angles: a back view and a 45-degree front-left view. I went to: I signed up with my email and translated the page into English. Then I opened Image to 3D and selected the multi-image option. Youโ€™ll see a diagram of a whale from several angles. Upload each reference image in its corresponding position, such as front, 45-degree front-left, and back. I selected the 1.5M-face option. This produces a very high-poly model, but donโ€™t worry, weโ€™ll fix that next. Once the generation is complete, download the model as a GLB file. From the Hunyuan homepage, open 3D Studio using one of the dropdown menus. Select the topology or retopology tool and upload your GLB. I chose the High setting to preserve as much detail as possible. After a few seconds, the model was retopologized. It kept most of its visual detail while using far fewer polygons. The original head and rifle didnโ€™t look very good, so I generated them separately. I returned to ChatGPT and created dedicated reference images for the Gundamโ€™s head and rifle. I generated each part individually in Hunyuan at the 1.5M setting, then ran both through the same retopology process. Next came the textures. Open the texture section, select the multi-image option, and upload the same reference images according to the whale orientation indicators. However, instead of using the original clean textures, I asked ChatGPT to recreate them with wear, rust stains, scratches, and other surface damage. This gave the Gundam a much older and more authentic appearance. Once every part was textured, I imported everything into Blender. You can ask Codex through MCP to remove the original head and rifle, or you can do it manually. Select the main model and press Tab to enter Edit Mode. Press 3 to enable face selection, then press C to activate Circle Select. Paint over the faces belonging to the original helmet or rifle. You can press X to delete those faces or P to separate them into another object. Then position the newly generated, more detailed head and rifle in their place. I demonstrate this process in one of my older videos. And thatโ€™s it. You now have a very cool 3D Gundam model! Afterward, I created the cockpit, separated the model into movable sections, and rigged everything for use in my Three.js game. That process deserves its own tutorial, though. If anyone wants to see it, let me know. Or just ask your AI, I guess. They seem to know everything these days. xD

Spectro

77,885 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 17 Tagen

Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90หš turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity
2:36

Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90หš turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity

TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)

45,879 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

2025 Results (First, WITHOUT my WSOP win and I explain further down why removing your biggest score can be helpful): CoinPoker: -$100k PokerStars: +$144k GG Poker: +$409k GG Rake: -$70k GG Rakeback: +$40k โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Total Profit: $423k Hours played: ~200 Full 8โ€“12h sessions: 20 Day 2 / Day 3 / FT sessions (2โ€“4h): 10 Total sessions: 30 Hourly: $2,150 โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Now INCLUDING the WSOP Main: Total Profit: $4,323,000 Hourly: $21,615 โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” I play 20โ€“24 tables. Thatโ€™s my sweet spot. I often stream on Twitch โ†’ extra distraction + people seeing my game. Yes, I could play fewer tables. But 20โ€“24 maximizes my hourly. With 10โ€“15 tables Iโ€™d have higher ROI. But significantly lower hourly. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Yes, my yearly sample size is smaller. Usually 700 โ€“ 1,200 tournaments/year. I mostly play Sundays. 2โ€“3 sessions per month (more during big series). I have similar results for the past 10+ years (of course not as big as winning the WSOP main). A lot of my time goes into my two businesses: Raise Your Edge and ACEND CLUB . Fewer sessions = more focus. More excitement. Better preparation. And that reflects in my results every single year. And I want to show you something important: You donโ€™t need to be a slave to poker. Even at midstakes, you can earn very well playing only a few sessions per week - depending on your goals and life outside poker. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” I also spend a lot of time on: โ€ข content creation โ€ข studying โ€ข researching โ€ข updating material for our students That keeps me sharp. I spot new things and exploits fast. I like systems. Simple systems. Extremely effective. I donโ€™t follow many of the pushed GTO concepts. I believe many of them hurt winrates more than they help. I focus on: โ€ข spots that are massively underbluffed โ€ข spots where I can fold my entire bluffcatcher range โ€ข spots where I donโ€™t need to bluff at all I train to identify those spots. Result? I need 1 second to decide. Others tank 20 - 30 seconds, think about blockers, balance, GTOโ€ฆ and still make a losing decision because they donโ€™t realize the spot is under-bluffed. That speed lets me: โ€ข add tables โ€ข reduce mental load โ€ข increase profit Example: I created Postflop Rocket โ†’ one of the #12 most profitable postflop exploits for our Champions students. Itโ€™s a checklist. Easy to apply. Extremely effective. Especially if you donโ€™t want to waste hours in solvers learning strategies that donโ€™t move the needle anyway. People still laugh and say: โ€œYour game is unbalanced. Easily exploitable.โ€ Okay. Sure. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Why remove the biggest score? To identify trends. In tournament poker, big scores often carry an entire year. They can also completely distort reality. Example: Youโ€™re down $100k. Then boom - $130k score. Now youโ€™re +$30k on the year. Add rakeback โ†’ maybe +$35โ€“40k. BUTโ€ฆ If your graph goes straight down for thousands of games and one score saves the year, chances are high youโ€™re a losing player with one lucky run. Yes, we need big scores in MTTs. But be brutally honest with yourself without your biggest score: โ€ข Break-even? โ†’ Not bad โ€ข Slightly up? โ†’ Good โ€ข Decently up? โ†’ Amazing โ€ข Decently down? โ†’ HIT THE LAB! Review with friends/coaches. Find the Leaks ASAP! This is about probabilities. Are you truly winning - or just lucky? Many players overvalue their biggest score. They move up in stakes. And their bankroll disappears faster than they can react. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” โ€œWOW, if I made this money, Iโ€™d quit and enjoy life.โ€ Reality check. This mindset is exactly why you wonโ€™t succeed. Yes, money matters. Making alot of money matters to me too. But its not everything. You lack: โ€ข Passion (NOT the Passion to make money with Poker), but REAL passion for the GRIND โ€ข Fire. Fire to also get up after brutal sessions. Fire to be excited about fixing leaks and improving. โ€ข Respect for the lessons this game teaches Without the above? It puts you at a huge disadvantage. For people like me, I dont mind ... โ€ข Getting up after downswings โ€ข Studying with zero paycheck โ€ข Grinding for years without results โ€ข Appreciating the growth and learnings without seeing the $ results. Yeah its not nice. But we accept those things as part of the journey. It took me 2 years to withdraw my first dollars. Are you willing to do that? 2-4 years of serious effort with no results? To grind your way up in Poker whilst working a job? You only see the highlights. The big scores. The Instagram moments. Thatโ€™s not reality. Thatโ€™s not the grind. This delusion will hold you back. You wonโ€™t last. You canโ€™t handle effort without immediate reward. Welcome to life. We can do everything right and still lose. Results are often not in our control. Only consistent effort over years makes success likely - not guaranteed. But not trying guarantees failure. If you think youโ€™d โ€œretireโ€ after making X millions, you havenโ€™t understood what it takes to win. Why quit if you love the game? If itโ€™s your fire? Thatโ€™s the difference between: โ€ข players winning for 10+ years โ€ข and those with one good year who disappear Everything has a price. Poker millions cost: โ€ข sacrifice โ€ข downswings โ€ข self-doubt โ€ข people laughing at you โ€ข pushing through anyway Most people want the millions. Not the price. Thatโ€™s why Iโ€™ve never thought about quitting. Maybe one day - because something else excites me more or I donโ€™t enjoy the grind anymore. But never because I made X dollars. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” If you made it this far - good sign. Most only care about the money. They look for shortcuts. The value of this post isnโ€™t the results. Itโ€™s the messages. Thatโ€™s the stuff that actually moves you forward. I wish you a STRONG 2026 CHAMP! Lets Crush!
0:20

2025 Results (First, WITHOUT my WSOP win and I explain further down why removing your biggest score can be helpful): CoinPoker: -$100k PokerStars: +$144k GG Poker: +$409k GG Rake: -$70k GG Rakeback: +$40k โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Total Profit: $423k Hours played: ~200 Full 8โ€“12h sessions: 20 Day 2 / Day 3 / FT sessions (2โ€“4h): 10 Total sessions: 30 Hourly: $2,150 โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Now INCLUDING the WSOP Main: Total Profit: $4,323,000 Hourly: $21,615 โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” I play 20โ€“24 tables. Thatโ€™s my sweet spot. I often stream on Twitch โ†’ extra distraction + people seeing my game. Yes, I could play fewer tables. But 20โ€“24 maximizes my hourly. With 10โ€“15 tables Iโ€™d have higher ROI. But significantly lower hourly. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Yes, my yearly sample size is smaller. Usually 700 โ€“ 1,200 tournaments/year. I mostly play Sundays. 2โ€“3 sessions per month (more during big series). I have similar results for the past 10+ years (of course not as big as winning the WSOP main). A lot of my time goes into my two businesses: Raise Your Edge and ACEND CLUB . Fewer sessions = more focus. More excitement. Better preparation. And that reflects in my results every single year. And I want to show you something important: You donโ€™t need to be a slave to poker. Even at midstakes, you can earn very well playing only a few sessions per week - depending on your goals and life outside poker. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” I also spend a lot of time on: โ€ข content creation โ€ข studying โ€ข researching โ€ข updating material for our students That keeps me sharp. I spot new things and exploits fast. I like systems. Simple systems. Extremely effective. I donโ€™t follow many of the pushed GTO concepts. I believe many of them hurt winrates more than they help. I focus on: โ€ข spots that are massively underbluffed โ€ข spots where I can fold my entire bluffcatcher range โ€ข spots where I donโ€™t need to bluff at all I train to identify those spots. Result? I need 1 second to decide. Others tank 20 - 30 seconds, think about blockers, balance, GTOโ€ฆ and still make a losing decision because they donโ€™t realize the spot is under-bluffed. That speed lets me: โ€ข add tables โ€ข reduce mental load โ€ข increase profit Example: I created Postflop Rocket โ†’ one of the #12 most profitable postflop exploits for our Champions students. Itโ€™s a checklist. Easy to apply. Extremely effective. Especially if you donโ€™t want to waste hours in solvers learning strategies that donโ€™t move the needle anyway. People still laugh and say: โ€œYour game is unbalanced. Easily exploitable.โ€ Okay. Sure. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” Why remove the biggest score? To identify trends. In tournament poker, big scores often carry an entire year. They can also completely distort reality. Example: Youโ€™re down $100k. Then boom - $130k score. Now youโ€™re +$30k on the year. Add rakeback โ†’ maybe +$35โ€“40k. BUTโ€ฆ If your graph goes straight down for thousands of games and one score saves the year, chances are high youโ€™re a losing player with one lucky run. Yes, we need big scores in MTTs. But be brutally honest with yourself without your biggest score: โ€ข Break-even? โ†’ Not bad โ€ข Slightly up? โ†’ Good โ€ข Decently up? โ†’ Amazing โ€ข Decently down? โ†’ HIT THE LAB! Review with friends/coaches. Find the Leaks ASAP! This is about probabilities. Are you truly winning - or just lucky? Many players overvalue their biggest score. They move up in stakes. And their bankroll disappears faster than they can react. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” โ€œWOW, if I made this money, Iโ€™d quit and enjoy life.โ€ Reality check. This mindset is exactly why you wonโ€™t succeed. Yes, money matters. Making alot of money matters to me too. But its not everything. You lack: โ€ข Passion (NOT the Passion to make money with Poker), but REAL passion for the GRIND โ€ข Fire. Fire to also get up after brutal sessions. Fire to be excited about fixing leaks and improving. โ€ข Respect for the lessons this game teaches Without the above? It puts you at a huge disadvantage. For people like me, I dont mind ... โ€ข Getting up after downswings โ€ข Studying with zero paycheck โ€ข Grinding for years without results โ€ข Appreciating the growth and learnings without seeing the $ results. Yeah its not nice. But we accept those things as part of the journey. It took me 2 years to withdraw my first dollars. Are you willing to do that? 2-4 years of serious effort with no results? To grind your way up in Poker whilst working a job? You only see the highlights. The big scores. The Instagram moments. Thatโ€™s not reality. Thatโ€™s not the grind. This delusion will hold you back. You wonโ€™t last. You canโ€™t handle effort without immediate reward. Welcome to life. We can do everything right and still lose. Results are often not in our control. Only consistent effort over years makes success likely - not guaranteed. But not trying guarantees failure. If you think youโ€™d โ€œretireโ€ after making X millions, you havenโ€™t understood what it takes to win. Why quit if you love the game? If itโ€™s your fire? Thatโ€™s the difference between: โ€ข players winning for 10+ years โ€ข and those with one good year who disappear Everything has a price. Poker millions cost: โ€ข sacrifice โ€ข downswings โ€ข self-doubt โ€ข people laughing at you โ€ข pushing through anyway Most people want the millions. Not the price. Thatโ€™s why Iโ€™ve never thought about quitting. Maybe one day - because something else excites me more or I donโ€™t enjoy the grind anymore. But never because I made X dollars. โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€” If you made it this far - good sign. Most only care about the money. They look for shortcuts. The value of this post isnโ€™t the results. Itโ€™s the messages. Thatโ€™s the stuff that actually moves you forward. I wish you a STRONG 2026 CHAMP! Lets Crush!

bencb

3,159,594 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 7 Monaten

Tom Crawshaw has been building automations for 9 years with $25 million in client revenue to his name. He just walked me through his Claude Code content system that's generating millions of views and tens of thousands of followers. Here's what I learned: 1. Skills beat Projects in Claude. Projects load every context file on every message and burn your token window. Skills work like a book where the LLM reads the table of contents and pulls only the chapter it needs for the job. Same context, fraction of the tokens. 2. He has a /content-create slash command that runs the entire pipeline. Voice profile, copywriting principles, hook generation, image direction. One command. He doesn't write anything from scratch anymore. 3. His voice profile auto-updates weekly. He wrote a script that hits the X API every 7 days, pulls his top-performing posts by engagement, and rewrites his voice profile based on what's actually working. The profile evolves on its own. 4. He distilled a master copywriter's entire body of work into a single markdown file. Grabbed every Alen Sultanic post he could find, dropped it into Claude, asked for the core principles, fed it into the skill. Now every post he writes runs through those principles automatically. 5. The hook generator scores 16 hooks per post against 7 criteria. Curiosity loops, specificity, sensory, credibility, voice match, and a couple of others. He never picks the #1 by default. Sometimes he splices the first line of one hook with the body of another. The taste is still his. 6. /insights is a native Claude Code command nobody talks about. It analyzes every session you've ever run and produces a full report on your usage patterns, where things break down, and prompts you can paste back into Claude to fix them. I had never heard of it. I'm running it tonight. 7. He spends most of his time on hooks and images. If those two suck, the body copy doesn't matter. Nobody reads it. 8. Image generation is never one-shot. He keeps a folder of reference images that have worked before and feeds them into Nano Banana/GPT Image 2 every time. Then he takes the 80-90% output and finishes it in Canva using "magic grab" to move logos and clean up text. Last mile is human every time. 9. The humanizer step is non-negotiable. Strip em dashes. Kill the "it's not X, it's Y" pattern. Cut the triple negatives. Cut "no fluff." He still has to remind Claude mid-session because it drifts. If you're not auditing for AI tells, you're shipping slop. 10. Wisprflow is the most important tool in his stack. Not a content tool. An everything tool. His test for whether you should be using it: do you talk faster than you type? You do. Everyone does. Bonus fact he dropped: QWERTY was designed 200 years ago to slow typing down so old typewriters wouldn't jam. We've been carrying that forward ever since. Voice is finally undoing it. This was an inside look at how a serious operator Tom is using Claude Code to run a content engine. The good, the bad, the iteration, all of it. I hope you enjoy this one as much as I did. Go watch it.
57:27

Tom Crawshaw has been building automations for 9 years with $25 million in client revenue to his name. He just walked me through his Claude Code content system that's generating millions of views and tens of thousands of followers. Here's what I learned: 1. Skills beat Projects in Claude. Projects load every context file on every message and burn your token window. Skills work like a book where the LLM reads the table of contents and pulls only the chapter it needs for the job. Same context, fraction of the tokens. 2. He has a /content-create slash command that runs the entire pipeline. Voice profile, copywriting principles, hook generation, image direction. One command. He doesn't write anything from scratch anymore. 3. His voice profile auto-updates weekly. He wrote a script that hits the X API every 7 days, pulls his top-performing posts by engagement, and rewrites his voice profile based on what's actually working. The profile evolves on its own. 4. He distilled a master copywriter's entire body of work into a single markdown file. Grabbed every Alen Sultanic post he could find, dropped it into Claude, asked for the core principles, fed it into the skill. Now every post he writes runs through those principles automatically. 5. The hook generator scores 16 hooks per post against 7 criteria. Curiosity loops, specificity, sensory, credibility, voice match, and a couple of others. He never picks the #1 by default. Sometimes he splices the first line of one hook with the body of another. The taste is still his. 6. /insights is a native Claude Code command nobody talks about. It analyzes every session you've ever run and produces a full report on your usage patterns, where things break down, and prompts you can paste back into Claude to fix them. I had never heard of it. I'm running it tonight. 7. He spends most of his time on hooks and images. If those two suck, the body copy doesn't matter. Nobody reads it. 8. Image generation is never one-shot. He keeps a folder of reference images that have worked before and feeds them into Nano Banana/GPT Image 2 every time. Then he takes the 80-90% output and finishes it in Canva using "magic grab" to move logos and clean up text. Last mile is human every time. 9. The humanizer step is non-negotiable. Strip em dashes. Kill the "it's not X, it's Y" pattern. Cut the triple negatives. Cut "no fluff." He still has to remind Claude mid-session because it drifts. If you're not auditing for AI tells, you're shipping slop. 10. Wisprflow is the most important tool in his stack. Not a content tool. An everything tool. His test for whether you should be using it: do you talk faster than you type? You do. Everyone does. Bonus fact he dropped: QWERTY was designed 200 years ago to slow typing down so old typewriters wouldn't jam. We've been carrying that forward ever since. Voice is finally undoing it. This was an inside look at how a serious operator Tom is using Claude Code to run a content engine. The good, the bad, the iteration, all of it. I hope you enjoy this one as much as I did. Go watch it.

Corey Ganim

36,120 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 3 Monaten

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason โœจ๐Ÿ‘พSaaStr.Aiโœจ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't wantโ€”who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropicโ€™s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We needโ€”everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big eventโ€”they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may becomeโ€”so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any roleโ€”sales, marketing, engineering, product, QAโ€”they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and saysโ€”it's it's it sounds Captain Obviousโ€”but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AIโ€”you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these teamโ€”all the brute forcers out thereโ€”everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubledโ€”well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hireโ€”now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, thereโ€”now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This isโ€”you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give youโ€”want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell youโ€”pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGCโ€”I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. Aโ€”this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And Iโ€”but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I justโ€”like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he saidโ€”Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it appliesโ€”I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it'sโ€” [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and Iโ€”pretend he's not hereโ€”I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we areโ€”and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure outโ€”I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember Iโ€”I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if youโ€”I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's overโ€”like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And Iโ€”this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent lifeโ€”and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's pointโ€”if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folksโ€”I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COOโ€”he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.
13:04

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason โœจ๐Ÿ‘พSaaStr.Aiโœจ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't wantโ€”who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropicโ€™s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We needโ€”everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big eventโ€”they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may becomeโ€”so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any roleโ€”sales, marketing, engineering, product, QAโ€”they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and saysโ€”it's it's it sounds Captain Obviousโ€”but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AIโ€”you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these teamโ€”all the brute forcers out thereโ€”everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubledโ€”well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hireโ€”now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, thereโ€”now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This isโ€”you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give youโ€”want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell youโ€”pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGCโ€”I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. Aโ€”this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And Iโ€”but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I justโ€”like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he saidโ€”Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it appliesโ€”I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it'sโ€” [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and Iโ€”pretend he's not hereโ€”I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we areโ€”and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure outโ€”I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember Iโ€”I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if youโ€”I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's overโ€”like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And Iโ€”this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent lifeโ€”and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's pointโ€”if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folksโ€”I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COOโ€”he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ)

37,685 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 4 Monaten

๐ŸŸขGIVEAWAY๐ŸŸข Best comments or memes about this whole circus + RT this post. 10 winners will each get $50๐Ÿ’Ž (For evidence, supporting materials, and context, read both articles and watch the video included in the article I posted yesterday) Housebets.com & Porchy pay your debts A few people told me they did not fully understand the first article because there were too many moving parts: leaderboard accounts, rewards, weekly dates, monthly bonus, Tequity, game categories, withdrawals, Provably Fair, seed changes, migration, support tickets, ledgers and founder messages. Fair enough. The evidence is already there, and I still recommend reading the full articles and, above all, watching the video, because the video shows the reward system failing live. But this text is the cleaner version: the full story explained in plain English, without assuming the reader knows anything about crypto casinos, leaderboards or lossback systems. From all the evidence Iโ€™ve gathered, the Housebets story is not a normal โ€œplayer lost moneyโ€ complaint. It looks like a full transparency failure across the whole product: leaderboard, rewards, withdrawals, game categories, Provably Fair / Tequity mapping, support, migration and founder response. Housebets sold itself as a rewards-first casino: public leaderboards, weekly/monthly bonuses, fast withdrawals, VIP treatment and Provably Fair games. But every time I asked for the records behind those systems, snapshots, ledger entries, weekly cycles, GGR/NGR, slider logs, PF seed mapping, Tequity round IDs, withdrawal approval logs, the answer became some version of โ€œforwarded to the relevant department.โ€ This started long before the public dispute. I was not some random angry player who appeared after one bad session. In January I was helping Housebets and giving product feedback. I literally told support on 27 January that I was โ€œtesting the website for George,โ€ while already dealing with a non-instant withdrawal and a 100% welcome bonus that had not applied. Support even asked me for โ€œproof about your testing job.โ€ The same chat shows the advertised 100% Welcome Bonus, the bonus not applying, and support saying the withdrawal needed internal confirmation instead of being instant. The welcome bonus issue never looked clean. Housebets advertised a 100% Welcome Bonus up to $1,000 on first deposit; I deposited, contacted support, and the bonus did not apply. Then support effectively turned a first-deposit bonus into a second-deposit workaround because the first one had not been applied properly. On 31 January I came back after another deposit and told them the bonus still had not been applied, even though I had already followed supportโ€™s instructions. Edward replied that he had โ€œforwardedโ€ the concern to the team. The same 100% welcome bonus was still being advertised in March. By April, the rewards system was already showing serious problems. I had the weekly slider at 100% lossback and told support I had lost money but the weekly did not appear. Jacky said the weekly was generated every Thursday at 00:01 UTC and gave actual internal figures: GGR $6,250, Total Bonus $6,083.99, NGR $168.31. So Housebets clearly had internal calculations when it wanted to explain why something might not pay. But when I later asked for full calculations, those same numbers suddenly became impossible to produce. Then on 18โ€“19 April, the rewards page was bugged and would not let me claim. Support could see a pending weekly bonus of $717.37, but I could not claim it from the UI. Tee said it had been forwarded to the relevant department. That $717.37 later appears in the bonus ledger as Rakeback (20 Apr) 717.37089061, so I am not saying that specific one stayed unpaid forever. The point is worse: already in April, support could see a pending weekly reward while the player-facing reward page did not work. For a casino built around rewards, that is not a small bug. That is the product. In May, the UI and account data kept failing basic trust checks. On 8 May, I deposited 400 USDT; support said it had been credited, but I could not see it, and the proposed fix was to log out, clear cookies and cache. On 16 May, I asked why total deposits and withdrawals had disappeared from the menu; support said the platform was โ€œin continuous evolution.โ€ On 17 May, I asked for my total deposits and withdrawals, and support said they did not have direct access to that consolidated summary and would email it. That full official ledger did not arrive. So when Housebets later defends itself with UI screenshots, remember: this was the same UI where deposits could be credited but invisible, totals disappeared, rewards pages bugged, and support could not access consolidated account totals. Withdrawals were also not what was advertised. On 16 May, I asked why a crypto withdrawal was pending if withdrawals were supposed to be instant. Tee answered: โ€œA few withdrawals require manual approval,โ€ then added, โ€œOur withdrawals are typically instant butโ€ฆโ€ That matters because a few days later the withdrawal delay became real damage. On 25 May, I told support before a match that I needed the funds to place a time-sensitive bet on another site in less than 20 minutes. I explained I wanted to bet around 60k at odds of 2.55. The withdrawal did not arrive in time. Later I told them the bet won and that I missed around 90k in profit because Housebets took more than two hours despite being warned before the match started. Jacky said he would raise the compensation case to the VIP team. Nobody resolved it. This was not one delayed withdrawal either. In my formal complaint I reconstructed several withdrawal delays: 23 May 02:55 โ†’ 08:03, around 5h08m; 25 May 03:05 โ†’ 08:09, around 5h04m; 17 May 03:54 โ†’ 08:02, around 4h08m; 18 May 04:46 โ†’ 08:11, around 3h25m; 16 May 05:23 โ†’ 08:12, around 2h49m. That is not โ€œinstant withdrawal.โ€ And if later marketing says withdrawals are much faster now, the obvious question is: if this was the faster version, what did slow look like? The Provably Fair / Tequity side was another major issue. On 17 May I asked support how to verify an old Blackjack round. I did not ask for a generic explanation of Provably Fair; I asked where I could see the server seed, client seed, nonce and result for previous games. Support sent me to bet history, mentioned RTP, gave a generic PF explanation and showed the current Dice seed screen. When I said that did not let me verify previous games, they told me to clear cookies/cache. After doing that, I saw a new client seed and nonce 1 even though I had not played with that seed pair. I asked if Housebets changes seeds on every login. Support could not answer and told me to contact VIP. That seed/session behaviour is important. I later recorded video evidence around the seed changing after clearing cookies/cache and asked for the exact mapping: Housebets account ID โ†’ Tequity/provider player ID โ†’ session/currency context โ†’ seed pair โ†’ server seed hash โ†’ revealed server seed โ†’ client seed โ†’ nonce/cursor โ†’ raw outcome โ†’ final result. Housebets cannot sell Provably Fair if the player cannot verify historical bets, and โ€œcontact VIPโ€ is not a verification algorithm. On 24 May, I asked for raw verification data for a specific Tequity Blackjack round: Round ID e1648d60-0da1-4433-a5ab-9ae39f5302e3, Blackjack, Tequity, bet amount 11,346 USDT, client seed O3YBZF7LBu, server seed hash starting 712875.... I asked for revealed server seed, nonce, full result JSON, card draw order and verification algorithm. I also asked about an apparent duplicate-card/deck question. Tee replied: โ€œI donโ€™t have the answers to your questions right now, but Iโ€™m forwarding your request to the relevant department.โ€ That same day, I asked for a full audit of six Dice bets of 11,400 USDT each, total 68,400 USDT. I requested bet IDs, provider round IDs, roll results, seed data, balance ledger, request/session logs, security logs, retry flags, provider records and a full technical reconciliation. Tee replied: โ€œI will forward this to the relevant department.โ€ So when I asked for raw data, the answer was not data. It was forwarding. Again. There were also many large loss clusters that required reconciliation because of those unresolved PF, Tequity, category, RTP and session questions. In my complaint I listed clusters such as 25 May 02:17โ€“02:54 Blackjack around 169,932 USDT; 16 May 12:31โ€“13:26 Dice around 90,571.92 USDT; 26 May 02:48โ€“03:58 Mines around 89,199 USDT; 24 May 06:20โ€“06:21 Dice at 68,400 USDT; 26 May 00:11โ€“01:41 Blackjack around 59,910 USDT; 25 May 22:51โ€“22:59 Dice around 59,576 USDT; and several more between 40k and 56k. I am not saying every losing cluster proves manipulation by itself. I am saying that when PF mapping, provider logs, RTP/HE, category mapping and seed/session behaviour are unresolved, these sequences need a real reconciliation. The leaderboard is where the story becomes very hard for Housebets to explain. Around 19โ€“20 May, two new accounts, elmourabut and lucasmartirini, appeared and started climbing every day at a vertiginous pace. Not normal slow leaderboard growth. Not a casual player building volume over time. They were created around that period and then started rising with huge wagering in a way that looked extremely unnatural for brand new accounts. By 29 May, I was first on both weekly and monthly leaderboards, and those two accounts were directly behind me with huge volume. In the monthly leaderboard screenshots, I was around $3.33M wagered, while elmourabut was around $1.29M and lucasmartirini around $1.08M. In the weekly leaderboard, I was around $1.096M, while those two accounts were around $635k and $578k. They were not normal accounts sitting at the bottom; they were directly behind me, applying pressure. In my formal complaint I recorded that elmourabut joined on 19 May and lucasmartirini on 20 May, that they showed zero visible withdrawals, large deposits/wagering and significant card-game volume, and I asked Housebets to confirm they were not staff, test, QA, admin, house-controlled, affiliate-controlled, internally funded, promotional, bonus-only or multi-account related accounts. This matters because a leaderboard is not passive. It is gamification. It makes players defend rank. When two new accounts appear behind you with hundreds of thousands or more than a million in volume, you are pressured to keep wagering. In my case, the disputed deposit sequence from 25 May 22:23 to 26 May 02:09 totals 91,168.375326 USDT. That sequence begins with 1,000.00 at 22:23 and continues with repeated deposits until 2,879.148969 at 02:09. The video later shows why those dates matter: there were deposits coming in, no gameplay withdrawal offsetting the sequence, a balance basically at zero, and later a leaderboard prize shown as P/L. I formally asked Housebets to confirm those two leaderboard accounts were real and eligible, and also to preserve wager logs, transaction records, balance adjustment logs, account flags, leaderboard calculation snapshots, support ticket logs, Telegram/email records and internal notes. Edward said he forwarded the request. In the same thread, he added that they were โ€œworking on fixing an issue regarding the weekly bonuses,โ€ and then said the weekly countdown was โ€œnot currently on Thursday evenings.โ€ So the leaderboard issue and the weekly bonus issue are linked in time and support context. After that, Housebets confirmed by email that elmourabut and lucasmartirini were โ€œlegitimate and eligible accounts.โ€ That email is the trap door. If they were legitimate and eligible, they should have remained in the leaderboard with their volume. If they were not, Housebets should never have confirmed them as legitimate and eligible. After that confirmation, the accounts disappeared from the leaderboard or stopped appearing in the positions their previous wagering required. I went back to support on 30 May and wrote: โ€œThere has been a material post-confirmation leaderboard change involving two accounts that Housebets had already confirmed as legitimate and eligible. I need the exact reason, timestamp, logs, and recalculation basis.โ€ Edward said the matter was flagged and that I could expect a prompt response. I am still waiting for the actual explanation. Why did they disappear? My read is simple: because every hour that passed, there was more evidence around those accounts. They had been created around the same period, they were climbing at a speed that looked anything but human, they showed no visible withdrawals in the data I could see and reported, they appeared to be generating huge volume in unclear game categories, and the games/categories tied to that volume did not even make sense from the player-facing UI. When I started asking what they were actually playing, what Card meant, whether the volume was Tequity / UnOriginals / House Games, what RTP and house edge applied, and where the logs were, the questions became uncomfortable. Keeping those accounts visible became harder than removing them. So they disappeared. The game category issue made the leaderboard even more suspicious. On 30 May, I asked support why my own stats showed almost all my volume under Slots / Tragamonedas when I did not play real slots. I told them: โ€œi dont play 3$ in unoriginals,โ€ โ€œi played all 3M in unoriginals,โ€ and โ€œive never play slots.โ€ I asked what โ€œCardโ€ was, where that game was, what RTP and house edge it had. Monica said Card was mainly Blackjack, Baccarat and Poker variants. Marcus later said the team was investigating why it showed that I mostly played slots when I had not. He could not give the exact game, RTP, HE, provider, category mapping or contribution logic. That matters because those same unclear categories were connected to leaderboard volume. If the site cannot clearly explain whether volume is Slots, Card, UnOriginals, House Games, Blackjack, Baccarat, Always 9 Baccarat or Tequity, then the leaderboard is not auditable for the player. I even asked which UnOriginals those two accounts were playing, and support told me to look at Live Bets. That is not an answer. I was not asking for gossip; I was asking what exact games generated leaderboard volume, what RTP/HE applied and whether that volume was eligible. There is also an earlier leaderboard-related precedent: Porchy had already told me in February that I would lose leaderboard places if I did not rename, because too many people were messaging support saying the site was not being fair due to my name and it โ€œdoesnโ€™t make us look good.โ€ That matters because it suggests leaderboard positioning was not treated as a sacred, untouchable system when public perception was involved. If leaderboard positions can be threatened for image reasons, then later claims that everything is purely automatic deserve scrutiny. Then Porchy made the leaderboard situation worse. Instead of producing logs or snapshots, he later said the leaderboard had โ€œabusersโ€ on it, that they were removed to help other players, and that it never affected me. Later he said they paid every single person, โ€œeven these abusers,โ€ then called me โ€œbegging for money.โ€ That creates a direct contradiction: Housebets confirmed the accounts as legitimate and eligible, then Porchy referred to leaderboard โ€œabusers.โ€ If they were abusers, why were they confirmed as legitimate and eligible? If they were eligible, why did they disappear? If they never affected me, where are the historical snapshots proving that? Once those accounts disappeared, Housebets paid the leaderboard prizes. On 1 June, the bonus ledger shows two Leaderboard entries: 5,007.46111706 and 1,001.49222341, totaling 6,008.95334047. That part was paid. But then Act Two started: the weekly and monthly rewards did not appear as separate ledger entries. The same bonus ledger shows those two 1 June entries as Leaderboard only, not Monthly Bonus, not Weekly Reload, not Lossback. The weekly timeline is a mess. On 28 May, the dashboard / UI said the weekly bonus was claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC, and the monthly was available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. That same night I told support the weekly had shown as available, then reset to 6 days without paying. Later I sent screenshots and wrote: โ€œ1M wagered and 0.2$.โ€ Jacky said he had raised the issue to the technical team. So the weekly failure was reported live, not reconstructed after the fact. The next day, 29 May, Edward said they were fixing an issue regarding weekly bonuses and that the weekly countdown was โ€œnot currently on Thursday evenings.โ€ Then on 1 June, Spencer said the May weekly bonuses were 7th, 14th, 21st, and then due to migration the weekly moved to Monday, so there was one on the 25th on the new platform. He also said the 25 May weekly covered gameplay from 21โ€“24 May, and that tech was looking at that plus the monthly bonus. The ledger does show a 25 May 02:10 Rakeback entry of 1,996.08334791, which likely corresponds to that 21โ€“24 May weekly. But my major loss sequence starts about 20 hours later, on 25 May at 22:23, and continues until 26 May at 02:09. So the 25 May weekly cannot cover those losses. If weekly was still Thursday, the 25/26 losses should have been in the 28 May weekly. But the bonus ledger on 28 May shows only two tiny Rakeback entries, 0.28373945 and 0.00280958. If weekly moved to Monday because of migration, those losses should have appeared in the next weekly after 25 May. But on 1 June the ledger only shows Leaderboard entries. Then the final video shows the next Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting to 6d 23h. So the same loss sequence appears to fall into no paid weekly cycle. The 4 June support conversation makes this even more ridiculous. After I recorded the weekly reset video, I asked support a very simple question: what were the last weekly dates/cycles? The dashboard / support flow again said weekly bonuses are claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC. Jacky confirmed: โ€œWeekly bonuses can be claimed every Thursday at 00:01 UTC in the Rewards tab,โ€ and added that if not claimed by the following Wednesday at 23:59 UTC, it expires. But when I asked for the exact last four dates, Jacky said he had to check with the relevant department. When I pressed again, he said, โ€œSorry, As I am only a CS, Let me raise your concerns to relevant department.โ€ I asked whether support did not have the information or simply could not answer. He replied: โ€œDo you have any other concerns?โ€ They use weekly cycles to decide whether to pay, but support cannot explain the weekly cycle. The monthly is missing too. The dashboard / UI said the monthly bonus is based on activity and VIP level from the previous month and is available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. In May I had more than 3,258,023.0829 wagered according to the formal complaint data. I also have proof/video that the monthly slider was set to 50/50. On 1 June, Spencer first told me I had claimed the Monthly Bonus at 1:12am BST around the same time as the monthly leaderboard reward. I immediately said I only received leaderboard prizes. Then Spencer changed the answer: โ€œOur tech team are still actively working on issues regarding the monthly bonuses.โ€ So first the monthly was claimed, then tech was still fixing it. The ledger still shows no Monthly Bonus entry. Housebets then seems to rely on โ€œup overallโ€ as a defence. But the video and ledger show why that does not work. My weekly/monthly profile later showed around +6,008 P/L with 0 deposits, 0 wagered and around 6,008 in bonuses. That number matches exactly the two 1 June Leaderboard payments. So the UI is showing leaderboard rewards as P/L. Then support used โ€œup overallโ€ to say I was not eligible for weekly lossback. That is not a clean lossback calculation. That is using a leaderboard reward as apparent profit to deny a lossback that should be based on actual eligible losses. There were also smaller reward-confusion issues along the way. On 22 May I asked for all pending bonuses,weekly, monthly, rakeback, level-up, anything, and support said the internal team would manually verify whether everything had been credited correctly and email me. On 24 May, I asked about level-up rewards because the reward looked like $3,500 for Pearl; support clarified it was $3,500 total across all Pearl levels, $500 per level. These are not the core issues, but they are part of the same pattern: rewards marketing, unclear UI, manual verification, emails that do not arrive, and players having to chase basic explanations. Then there is the migration. On 25 May, after the delayed withdrawal, missing VIP contact and unresolved issues, support told me my account would be moved to the new platform and that this upgrade would offer a better withdrawal process and fix many issues. Before that migration, I explicitly requested that no account data, internal data, logs, balance history, bonus history, bet history, provider records or pending issues be deleted. The response: โ€œYour request has been relayed to the relevant department.โ€ Again, forwarding. But if the old data is safe, Housebets should provide the old leaderboard snapshots, old weekly states, old bonus logs, old Tequity mapping and old withdrawal approval logs. The founder response did not fix anything. When Porchy finally engaged, he did not provide the records. He framed the settlement request as โ€œso you want $100,000?โ€ and asked whether I needed it or else I was going to post on X. I had already made clear this was not money for silence; I asked for logs, snapshots, withdrawal records, calculations and a counter-calculation if Housebets disagreed. He later referred to โ€œabusers,โ€ told me I was โ€œup overall,โ€ said โ€œYou are begging for money,โ€ and suggested I โ€œjust do this to casinos.โ€ Still no ledger. Still no weekly calculation. Still no monthly entry. Still no PF/Tequity mapping. Still no leaderboard snapshots. Another player also contacted me with screenshots pointing to similar categories of issues: private deals, leaderboard payout disputes, migration/account merge problems, missing history and a tiny monthly bonus despite claimed losses. I am not using that playerโ€™s case as the foundation of my claim without his full ledger, but it matters because it suggests the same type of opacity may not be isolated: private VIP/reward deals, leaderboard eligibility, monthly bonus calculations, migration and unclear history. If Housebets has private deals that affect leaderboard eligibility or rewards, it must explain how those deals interact with public leaderboards. So the overall picture is this: Housebets sold a public leaderboard and rewards system that pressured real wagering. Two new accounts appeared directly behind me with huge volume, were confirmed as legitimate and eligible, then disappeared after I asked for logs and questioned game categories. Housebets could not explain the exact games, RTP, house edge or category mapping behind the volume. The accounts were later framed by Porchy as โ€œabusers,โ€ contradicting the earlier eligibility confirmation. Once Housebets paid me the leaderboard prizes, those prizes were shown as P/L, and that contaminated P/L was then used to claim I was โ€œup overallโ€ and not eligible for lossback. At the same time, my real 25 May 22:23 โ†’ 26 May 02:09 loss sequence of 91,168.375326 USDT appears in no clean weekly cycle. The 25 May weekly covered 21โ€“24 May according to Spencer, so it cannot cover that loss sequence. The 28 May weekly showed only tiny Rakeback entries and was already reported as broken. The 1 June ledger shows only Leaderboard entries. The later video shows Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting. And when I ask support for the exact weekly calendar, they cannot answer and send it to the relevant department. The monthly is the same story. The dashboard / UI says it is based on activity and VIP. I had more than 3.25M wagered in May. Spencer first says I claimed it, then says tech is still working on monthly bonuses. The ledger shows no Monthly Bonus. If Housebets says I was not eligible, they need to show the formula, slider history, cycle, GGR/NGR, eligible loss/activity, deductions and ledger result. If they cannot, โ€œnot eligibleโ€ is just another label. And this opens another can of worms: Tequity / provider configuration. Housebets cannot hide behind โ€œthe providerโ€ whenever something goes wrong. The player does not deposit with Tequity. The player does not withdraw from Tequity. The player does not speak to Tequity support. The player does not compete in a Tequity leaderboard. The player plays on Housebets, with a Housebets wallet, Housebets UI, Housebets rewards, Housebets leaderboard and Housebets support. 1/2
22:49

๐ŸŸขGIVEAWAY๐ŸŸข Best comments or memes about this whole circus + RT this post. 10 winners will each get $50๐Ÿ’Ž (For evidence, supporting materials, and context, read both articles and watch the video included in the article I posted yesterday) Housebets.com & Porchy pay your debts A few people told me they did not fully understand the first article because there were too many moving parts: leaderboard accounts, rewards, weekly dates, monthly bonus, Tequity, game categories, withdrawals, Provably Fair, seed changes, migration, support tickets, ledgers and founder messages. Fair enough. The evidence is already there, and I still recommend reading the full articles and, above all, watching the video, because the video shows the reward system failing live. But this text is the cleaner version: the full story explained in plain English, without assuming the reader knows anything about crypto casinos, leaderboards or lossback systems. From all the evidence Iโ€™ve gathered, the Housebets story is not a normal โ€œplayer lost moneyโ€ complaint. It looks like a full transparency failure across the whole product: leaderboard, rewards, withdrawals, game categories, Provably Fair / Tequity mapping, support, migration and founder response. Housebets sold itself as a rewards-first casino: public leaderboards, weekly/monthly bonuses, fast withdrawals, VIP treatment and Provably Fair games. But every time I asked for the records behind those systems, snapshots, ledger entries, weekly cycles, GGR/NGR, slider logs, PF seed mapping, Tequity round IDs, withdrawal approval logs, the answer became some version of โ€œforwarded to the relevant department.โ€ This started long before the public dispute. I was not some random angry player who appeared after one bad session. In January I was helping Housebets and giving product feedback. I literally told support on 27 January that I was โ€œtesting the website for George,โ€ while already dealing with a non-instant withdrawal and a 100% welcome bonus that had not applied. Support even asked me for โ€œproof about your testing job.โ€ The same chat shows the advertised 100% Welcome Bonus, the bonus not applying, and support saying the withdrawal needed internal confirmation instead of being instant. The welcome bonus issue never looked clean. Housebets advertised a 100% Welcome Bonus up to $1,000 on first deposit; I deposited, contacted support, and the bonus did not apply. Then support effectively turned a first-deposit bonus into a second-deposit workaround because the first one had not been applied properly. On 31 January I came back after another deposit and told them the bonus still had not been applied, even though I had already followed supportโ€™s instructions. Edward replied that he had โ€œforwardedโ€ the concern to the team. The same 100% welcome bonus was still being advertised in March. By April, the rewards system was already showing serious problems. I had the weekly slider at 100% lossback and told support I had lost money but the weekly did not appear. Jacky said the weekly was generated every Thursday at 00:01 UTC and gave actual internal figures: GGR $6,250, Total Bonus $6,083.99, NGR $168.31. So Housebets clearly had internal calculations when it wanted to explain why something might not pay. But when I later asked for full calculations, those same numbers suddenly became impossible to produce. Then on 18โ€“19 April, the rewards page was bugged and would not let me claim. Support could see a pending weekly bonus of $717.37, but I could not claim it from the UI. Tee said it had been forwarded to the relevant department. That $717.37 later appears in the bonus ledger as Rakeback (20 Apr) 717.37089061, so I am not saying that specific one stayed unpaid forever. The point is worse: already in April, support could see a pending weekly reward while the player-facing reward page did not work. For a casino built around rewards, that is not a small bug. That is the product. In May, the UI and account data kept failing basic trust checks. On 8 May, I deposited 400 USDT; support said it had been credited, but I could not see it, and the proposed fix was to log out, clear cookies and cache. On 16 May, I asked why total deposits and withdrawals had disappeared from the menu; support said the platform was โ€œin continuous evolution.โ€ On 17 May, I asked for my total deposits and withdrawals, and support said they did not have direct access to that consolidated summary and would email it. That full official ledger did not arrive. So when Housebets later defends itself with UI screenshots, remember: this was the same UI where deposits could be credited but invisible, totals disappeared, rewards pages bugged, and support could not access consolidated account totals. Withdrawals were also not what was advertised. On 16 May, I asked why a crypto withdrawal was pending if withdrawals were supposed to be instant. Tee answered: โ€œA few withdrawals require manual approval,โ€ then added, โ€œOur withdrawals are typically instant butโ€ฆโ€ That matters because a few days later the withdrawal delay became real damage. On 25 May, I told support before a match that I needed the funds to place a time-sensitive bet on another site in less than 20 minutes. I explained I wanted to bet around 60k at odds of 2.55. The withdrawal did not arrive in time. Later I told them the bet won and that I missed around 90k in profit because Housebets took more than two hours despite being warned before the match started. Jacky said he would raise the compensation case to the VIP team. Nobody resolved it. This was not one delayed withdrawal either. In my formal complaint I reconstructed several withdrawal delays: 23 May 02:55 โ†’ 08:03, around 5h08m; 25 May 03:05 โ†’ 08:09, around 5h04m; 17 May 03:54 โ†’ 08:02, around 4h08m; 18 May 04:46 โ†’ 08:11, around 3h25m; 16 May 05:23 โ†’ 08:12, around 2h49m. That is not โ€œinstant withdrawal.โ€ And if later marketing says withdrawals are much faster now, the obvious question is: if this was the faster version, what did slow look like? The Provably Fair / Tequity side was another major issue. On 17 May I asked support how to verify an old Blackjack round. I did not ask for a generic explanation of Provably Fair; I asked where I could see the server seed, client seed, nonce and result for previous games. Support sent me to bet history, mentioned RTP, gave a generic PF explanation and showed the current Dice seed screen. When I said that did not let me verify previous games, they told me to clear cookies/cache. After doing that, I saw a new client seed and nonce 1 even though I had not played with that seed pair. I asked if Housebets changes seeds on every login. Support could not answer and told me to contact VIP. That seed/session behaviour is important. I later recorded video evidence around the seed changing after clearing cookies/cache and asked for the exact mapping: Housebets account ID โ†’ Tequity/provider player ID โ†’ session/currency context โ†’ seed pair โ†’ server seed hash โ†’ revealed server seed โ†’ client seed โ†’ nonce/cursor โ†’ raw outcome โ†’ final result. Housebets cannot sell Provably Fair if the player cannot verify historical bets, and โ€œcontact VIPโ€ is not a verification algorithm. On 24 May, I asked for raw verification data for a specific Tequity Blackjack round: Round ID e1648d60-0da1-4433-a5ab-9ae39f5302e3, Blackjack, Tequity, bet amount 11,346 USDT, client seed O3YBZF7LBu, server seed hash starting 712875.... I asked for revealed server seed, nonce, full result JSON, card draw order and verification algorithm. I also asked about an apparent duplicate-card/deck question. Tee replied: โ€œI donโ€™t have the answers to your questions right now, but Iโ€™m forwarding your request to the relevant department.โ€ That same day, I asked for a full audit of six Dice bets of 11,400 USDT each, total 68,400 USDT. I requested bet IDs, provider round IDs, roll results, seed data, balance ledger, request/session logs, security logs, retry flags, provider records and a full technical reconciliation. Tee replied: โ€œI will forward this to the relevant department.โ€ So when I asked for raw data, the answer was not data. It was forwarding. Again. There were also many large loss clusters that required reconciliation because of those unresolved PF, Tequity, category, RTP and session questions. In my complaint I listed clusters such as 25 May 02:17โ€“02:54 Blackjack around 169,932 USDT; 16 May 12:31โ€“13:26 Dice around 90,571.92 USDT; 26 May 02:48โ€“03:58 Mines around 89,199 USDT; 24 May 06:20โ€“06:21 Dice at 68,400 USDT; 26 May 00:11โ€“01:41 Blackjack around 59,910 USDT; 25 May 22:51โ€“22:59 Dice around 59,576 USDT; and several more between 40k and 56k. I am not saying every losing cluster proves manipulation by itself. I am saying that when PF mapping, provider logs, RTP/HE, category mapping and seed/session behaviour are unresolved, these sequences need a real reconciliation. The leaderboard is where the story becomes very hard for Housebets to explain. Around 19โ€“20 May, two new accounts, elmourabut and lucasmartirini, appeared and started climbing every day at a vertiginous pace. Not normal slow leaderboard growth. Not a casual player building volume over time. They were created around that period and then started rising with huge wagering in a way that looked extremely unnatural for brand new accounts. By 29 May, I was first on both weekly and monthly leaderboards, and those two accounts were directly behind me with huge volume. In the monthly leaderboard screenshots, I was around $3.33M wagered, while elmourabut was around $1.29M and lucasmartirini around $1.08M. In the weekly leaderboard, I was around $1.096M, while those two accounts were around $635k and $578k. They were not normal accounts sitting at the bottom; they were directly behind me, applying pressure. In my formal complaint I recorded that elmourabut joined on 19 May and lucasmartirini on 20 May, that they showed zero visible withdrawals, large deposits/wagering and significant card-game volume, and I asked Housebets to confirm they were not staff, test, QA, admin, house-controlled, affiliate-controlled, internally funded, promotional, bonus-only or multi-account related accounts. This matters because a leaderboard is not passive. It is gamification. It makes players defend rank. When two new accounts appear behind you with hundreds of thousands or more than a million in volume, you are pressured to keep wagering. In my case, the disputed deposit sequence from 25 May 22:23 to 26 May 02:09 totals 91,168.375326 USDT. That sequence begins with 1,000.00 at 22:23 and continues with repeated deposits until 2,879.148969 at 02:09. The video later shows why those dates matter: there were deposits coming in, no gameplay withdrawal offsetting the sequence, a balance basically at zero, and later a leaderboard prize shown as P/L. I formally asked Housebets to confirm those two leaderboard accounts were real and eligible, and also to preserve wager logs, transaction records, balance adjustment logs, account flags, leaderboard calculation snapshots, support ticket logs, Telegram/email records and internal notes. Edward said he forwarded the request. In the same thread, he added that they were โ€œworking on fixing an issue regarding the weekly bonuses,โ€ and then said the weekly countdown was โ€œnot currently on Thursday evenings.โ€ So the leaderboard issue and the weekly bonus issue are linked in time and support context. After that, Housebets confirmed by email that elmourabut and lucasmartirini were โ€œlegitimate and eligible accounts.โ€ That email is the trap door. If they were legitimate and eligible, they should have remained in the leaderboard with their volume. If they were not, Housebets should never have confirmed them as legitimate and eligible. After that confirmation, the accounts disappeared from the leaderboard or stopped appearing in the positions their previous wagering required. I went back to support on 30 May and wrote: โ€œThere has been a material post-confirmation leaderboard change involving two accounts that Housebets had already confirmed as legitimate and eligible. I need the exact reason, timestamp, logs, and recalculation basis.โ€ Edward said the matter was flagged and that I could expect a prompt response. I am still waiting for the actual explanation. Why did they disappear? My read is simple: because every hour that passed, there was more evidence around those accounts. They had been created around the same period, they were climbing at a speed that looked anything but human, they showed no visible withdrawals in the data I could see and reported, they appeared to be generating huge volume in unclear game categories, and the games/categories tied to that volume did not even make sense from the player-facing UI. When I started asking what they were actually playing, what Card meant, whether the volume was Tequity / UnOriginals / House Games, what RTP and house edge applied, and where the logs were, the questions became uncomfortable. Keeping those accounts visible became harder than removing them. So they disappeared. The game category issue made the leaderboard even more suspicious. On 30 May, I asked support why my own stats showed almost all my volume under Slots / Tragamonedas when I did not play real slots. I told them: โ€œi dont play 3$ in unoriginals,โ€ โ€œi played all 3M in unoriginals,โ€ and โ€œive never play slots.โ€ I asked what โ€œCardโ€ was, where that game was, what RTP and house edge it had. Monica said Card was mainly Blackjack, Baccarat and Poker variants. Marcus later said the team was investigating why it showed that I mostly played slots when I had not. He could not give the exact game, RTP, HE, provider, category mapping or contribution logic. That matters because those same unclear categories were connected to leaderboard volume. If the site cannot clearly explain whether volume is Slots, Card, UnOriginals, House Games, Blackjack, Baccarat, Always 9 Baccarat or Tequity, then the leaderboard is not auditable for the player. I even asked which UnOriginals those two accounts were playing, and support told me to look at Live Bets. That is not an answer. I was not asking for gossip; I was asking what exact games generated leaderboard volume, what RTP/HE applied and whether that volume was eligible. There is also an earlier leaderboard-related precedent: Porchy had already told me in February that I would lose leaderboard places if I did not rename, because too many people were messaging support saying the site was not being fair due to my name and it โ€œdoesnโ€™t make us look good.โ€ That matters because it suggests leaderboard positioning was not treated as a sacred, untouchable system when public perception was involved. If leaderboard positions can be threatened for image reasons, then later claims that everything is purely automatic deserve scrutiny. Then Porchy made the leaderboard situation worse. Instead of producing logs or snapshots, he later said the leaderboard had โ€œabusersโ€ on it, that they were removed to help other players, and that it never affected me. Later he said they paid every single person, โ€œeven these abusers,โ€ then called me โ€œbegging for money.โ€ That creates a direct contradiction: Housebets confirmed the accounts as legitimate and eligible, then Porchy referred to leaderboard โ€œabusers.โ€ If they were abusers, why were they confirmed as legitimate and eligible? If they were eligible, why did they disappear? If they never affected me, where are the historical snapshots proving that? Once those accounts disappeared, Housebets paid the leaderboard prizes. On 1 June, the bonus ledger shows two Leaderboard entries: 5,007.46111706 and 1,001.49222341, totaling 6,008.95334047. That part was paid. But then Act Two started: the weekly and monthly rewards did not appear as separate ledger entries. The same bonus ledger shows those two 1 June entries as Leaderboard only, not Monthly Bonus, not Weekly Reload, not Lossback. The weekly timeline is a mess. On 28 May, the dashboard / UI said the weekly bonus was claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC, and the monthly was available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. That same night I told support the weekly had shown as available, then reset to 6 days without paying. Later I sent screenshots and wrote: โ€œ1M wagered and 0.2$.โ€ Jacky said he had raised the issue to the technical team. So the weekly failure was reported live, not reconstructed after the fact. The next day, 29 May, Edward said they were fixing an issue regarding weekly bonuses and that the weekly countdown was โ€œnot currently on Thursday evenings.โ€ Then on 1 June, Spencer said the May weekly bonuses were 7th, 14th, 21st, and then due to migration the weekly moved to Monday, so there was one on the 25th on the new platform. He also said the 25 May weekly covered gameplay from 21โ€“24 May, and that tech was looking at that plus the monthly bonus. The ledger does show a 25 May 02:10 Rakeback entry of 1,996.08334791, which likely corresponds to that 21โ€“24 May weekly. But my major loss sequence starts about 20 hours later, on 25 May at 22:23, and continues until 26 May at 02:09. So the 25 May weekly cannot cover those losses. If weekly was still Thursday, the 25/26 losses should have been in the 28 May weekly. But the bonus ledger on 28 May shows only two tiny Rakeback entries, 0.28373945 and 0.00280958. If weekly moved to Monday because of migration, those losses should have appeared in the next weekly after 25 May. But on 1 June the ledger only shows Leaderboard entries. Then the final video shows the next Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting to 6d 23h. So the same loss sequence appears to fall into no paid weekly cycle. The 4 June support conversation makes this even more ridiculous. After I recorded the weekly reset video, I asked support a very simple question: what were the last weekly dates/cycles? The dashboard / support flow again said weekly bonuses are claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC. Jacky confirmed: โ€œWeekly bonuses can be claimed every Thursday at 00:01 UTC in the Rewards tab,โ€ and added that if not claimed by the following Wednesday at 23:59 UTC, it expires. But when I asked for the exact last four dates, Jacky said he had to check with the relevant department. When I pressed again, he said, โ€œSorry, As I am only a CS, Let me raise your concerns to relevant department.โ€ I asked whether support did not have the information or simply could not answer. He replied: โ€œDo you have any other concerns?โ€ They use weekly cycles to decide whether to pay, but support cannot explain the weekly cycle. The monthly is missing too. The dashboard / UI said the monthly bonus is based on activity and VIP level from the previous month and is available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. In May I had more than 3,258,023.0829 wagered according to the formal complaint data. I also have proof/video that the monthly slider was set to 50/50. On 1 June, Spencer first told me I had claimed the Monthly Bonus at 1:12am BST around the same time as the monthly leaderboard reward. I immediately said I only received leaderboard prizes. Then Spencer changed the answer: โ€œOur tech team are still actively working on issues regarding the monthly bonuses.โ€ So first the monthly was claimed, then tech was still fixing it. The ledger still shows no Monthly Bonus entry. Housebets then seems to rely on โ€œup overallโ€ as a defence. But the video and ledger show why that does not work. My weekly/monthly profile later showed around +6,008 P/L with 0 deposits, 0 wagered and around 6,008 in bonuses. That number matches exactly the two 1 June Leaderboard payments. So the UI is showing leaderboard rewards as P/L. Then support used โ€œup overallโ€ to say I was not eligible for weekly lossback. That is not a clean lossback calculation. That is using a leaderboard reward as apparent profit to deny a lossback that should be based on actual eligible losses. There were also smaller reward-confusion issues along the way. On 22 May I asked for all pending bonuses,weekly, monthly, rakeback, level-up, anything, and support said the internal team would manually verify whether everything had been credited correctly and email me. On 24 May, I asked about level-up rewards because the reward looked like $3,500 for Pearl; support clarified it was $3,500 total across all Pearl levels, $500 per level. These are not the core issues, but they are part of the same pattern: rewards marketing, unclear UI, manual verification, emails that do not arrive, and players having to chase basic explanations. Then there is the migration. On 25 May, after the delayed withdrawal, missing VIP contact and unresolved issues, support told me my account would be moved to the new platform and that this upgrade would offer a better withdrawal process and fix many issues. Before that migration, I explicitly requested that no account data, internal data, logs, balance history, bonus history, bet history, provider records or pending issues be deleted. The response: โ€œYour request has been relayed to the relevant department.โ€ Again, forwarding. But if the old data is safe, Housebets should provide the old leaderboard snapshots, old weekly states, old bonus logs, old Tequity mapping and old withdrawal approval logs. The founder response did not fix anything. When Porchy finally engaged, he did not provide the records. He framed the settlement request as โ€œso you want $100,000?โ€ and asked whether I needed it or else I was going to post on X. I had already made clear this was not money for silence; I asked for logs, snapshots, withdrawal records, calculations and a counter-calculation if Housebets disagreed. He later referred to โ€œabusers,โ€ told me I was โ€œup overall,โ€ said โ€œYou are begging for money,โ€ and suggested I โ€œjust do this to casinos.โ€ Still no ledger. Still no weekly calculation. Still no monthly entry. Still no PF/Tequity mapping. Still no leaderboard snapshots. Another player also contacted me with screenshots pointing to similar categories of issues: private deals, leaderboard payout disputes, migration/account merge problems, missing history and a tiny monthly bonus despite claimed losses. I am not using that playerโ€™s case as the foundation of my claim without his full ledger, but it matters because it suggests the same type of opacity may not be isolated: private VIP/reward deals, leaderboard eligibility, monthly bonus calculations, migration and unclear history. If Housebets has private deals that affect leaderboard eligibility or rewards, it must explain how those deals interact with public leaderboards. So the overall picture is this: Housebets sold a public leaderboard and rewards system that pressured real wagering. Two new accounts appeared directly behind me with huge volume, were confirmed as legitimate and eligible, then disappeared after I asked for logs and questioned game categories. Housebets could not explain the exact games, RTP, house edge or category mapping behind the volume. The accounts were later framed by Porchy as โ€œabusers,โ€ contradicting the earlier eligibility confirmation. Once Housebets paid me the leaderboard prizes, those prizes were shown as P/L, and that contaminated P/L was then used to claim I was โ€œup overallโ€ and not eligible for lossback. At the same time, my real 25 May 22:23 โ†’ 26 May 02:09 loss sequence of 91,168.375326 USDT appears in no clean weekly cycle. The 25 May weekly covered 21โ€“24 May according to Spencer, so it cannot cover that loss sequence. The 28 May weekly showed only tiny Rakeback entries and was already reported as broken. The 1 June ledger shows only Leaderboard entries. The later video shows Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting. And when I ask support for the exact weekly calendar, they cannot answer and send it to the relevant department. The monthly is the same story. The dashboard / UI says it is based on activity and VIP. I had more than 3.25M wagered in May. Spencer first says I claimed it, then says tech is still working on monthly bonuses. The ledger shows no Monthly Bonus. If Housebets says I was not eligible, they need to show the formula, slider history, cycle, GGR/NGR, eligible loss/activity, deductions and ledger result. If they cannot, โ€œnot eligibleโ€ is just another label. And this opens another can of worms: Tequity / provider configuration. Housebets cannot hide behind โ€œthe providerโ€ whenever something goes wrong. The player does not deposit with Tequity. The player does not withdraw from Tequity. The player does not speak to Tequity support. The player does not compete in a Tequity leaderboard. The player plays on Housebets, with a Housebets wallet, Housebets UI, Housebets rewards, Housebets leaderboard and Housebets support. 1/2

Dr. W

20,491 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 2 Monaten

A short timeline. Just what happened, in order. Decide for yourselves. 1. A DRep (โ›๏ธDr. Navjit Dhaliwal) asked whether DReps with paid IO-linked roles should abstain on IO's treasury proposals. A normal conflict-of-interest question. 2. Charles did not answer the question. He went after Iagon - publicly, repeatedly, over days, to his 1M+ follower account, with IO employees and IO-aligned accounts amplifying. He said Navjit had "lost the plot," called the concern "objectively wrong," and publicly stated Iagon's leadership should be replaced or the project could collapse. 3. IAG fell ~32% in 24h. Holders - who are also ADA holders - lost real money. 4. As IAG was crashing, the price-crash chart was posted at Charles. He replied with a video clip of Bane: "Your punishment must be more severe... not of your body... of your soul." 5. Charles began describing the conflict-of-interest question as an "attack on his ambassadors." It was not. No ambassador was attacked. A DRep asked, in public, whether DReps with paid IO ties should abstain on IO's proposals - a standard governance question. Reframing a question as an "attack" is what made everything that followed look justified. 6. On that false premise, Charles hosted an X Space and said, about the token holders of a project in his own ecosystem: "I don't give a shit about your token holders... I don't give a shit about your bag holders... If you attack my ambassadors, I will burn you to the ground." He also said the way out was to "apologize" and "back the fuck off." 7. When a community member said I was "obsessed," Charles replied that I have "CDS," that it is "incurable," and that people should "let him go." CDS - Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome - is a veterinary diagnosis: age-related dementia in dogs and cats. So a sitting DRep raising sourced concerns was described in the language a vet uses for a deteriorating animal. 8. Charles then posted a unity video: the only thing that can destroy Cardano is internal fighting. 9. When some Japanese DReps voted against IO's research proposal, Charles posted directly to the Japanese community: if the proposal did not pass, "Cardano will lose its scientists" and "our lab will be forced to close." He then asked the community to "delegate to dReps who support Cardano's research agenda" - in other words, to move voting power away from DReps who voted the wrong way. When that pressure did not deliver the result, the threat hardened: approve the proposal, or be responsible for ending Cardano's research entirely. Only after this also failed to work did the tone suddenly soften. 10. As hundreds of holders engaged with these concerns, Charles shifted tone - "#strongertogether," inviting conversation. 11. I took that at face value. Then I did something he never did. After he attacked Iagon, after the "burn you to the ground," after his words helped wipe ~32% off a token held by thousands - I was the one who extended a hand. I publicly offered him a private, no-recording, one-on-one call. Man to man. Not for me - for the ecosystem. The person who was attacked took the first step toward peace. 12. His public answer to that olive branch was the pattern again, in one post. He said: "Tell him to go to hell." He demanded I issue "a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said" before he would even speak. He said: "You don't treat me like a human toilet." And then, in the last three lines: "He's trash. Everyone can see it now. We move on." Read that ending again. I offered him a private, calm conversation - and his response was to call me "trash" and tell the audience that this proves something about me. He attacked, and in the same breath framed the attack as evidence against the person he attacked. That is the reversal in its purest form: be the aggressor, then announce that the aggression exposes the victim. That is the sequence. I offered a calm, private conversation - and that was the response to it. One more thing worth seeing plainly. Not days apart. The same afternoon - roughly two hours between these two posts. First, in public, to the ecosystem: "Cardano is alive. The community is engaged... You are not passive holders. You are owners." "Let me show up the way I should." "I am inviting all of you to sit down and have a real conversation." "I am 100% focused on Cardano and Midnight. #strongertogether" Roughly two hours later, to me, after I publicly offered exactly that - a private, calm, one-on-one conversation: "Tell him to go to hell." "Have him issue a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said." "You don't treat me like a human toilet." "He's trash. Everyone can see it now." That is the gap. "Stronger together" for the audience. Two hours later, "go to hell" and "he's trash" for the person who took him up on it. A real invitation to talk does not come with a demand to grovel first - and it does not curdle into "go to hell" within the same afternoon. Look at the whole shape of this. He attacked. He did not answer the question - he went after the people who asked it. When the damage was done and holders were losing money, he posted about punishment and souls. He said in public he would burn people to the ground. He pressured an entire national community to vote his way or be blamed for the end of Cardano's research. And then, step by step, he became the victim. The question became an "attack." The critics became aggressors. The man with 1M followers and the treasury proposals became the wronged party defending the vulnerable. When I - the one who was attacked - offered peace, he framed himself as the one owed an apology, and called me "trash" for asking. That reversal has a name: DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is not a diagnosis. It is a pattern, and the record above is the pattern, step by step, in his own words. So the practical question stands: Is this conduct - the attacks, the Bane clip aimed at people losing money, the "burn you to the ground," the pressure on the Japanese community, the false "victim" framing, the rejection of a good-faith olive branch - the conduct of someone who should be trusted with hundreds of millions of ADA from the community treasury? Cardano does not have a "leader." It has a community, a treasury, and contractors who ask that community for funding. IO is one of those contractors - currently asking for hundreds of millions of ADA, with a track record of missed timelines. A contractor asking the community for money does not get to attack the members of that community for doing the exact thing the governance system was built for: participating, voting, and asking questions. Respect for ADA holders is not optional for someone requesting their treasury. It is the job. Screenshots of every quote above are attached. Read them in full, and decide for yourselves.๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡
0:37

A short timeline. Just what happened, in order. Decide for yourselves. 1. A DRep (โ›๏ธDr. Navjit Dhaliwal) asked whether DReps with paid IO-linked roles should abstain on IO's treasury proposals. A normal conflict-of-interest question. 2. Charles did not answer the question. He went after Iagon - publicly, repeatedly, over days, to his 1M+ follower account, with IO employees and IO-aligned accounts amplifying. He said Navjit had "lost the plot," called the concern "objectively wrong," and publicly stated Iagon's leadership should be replaced or the project could collapse. 3. IAG fell ~32% in 24h. Holders - who are also ADA holders - lost real money. 4. As IAG was crashing, the price-crash chart was posted at Charles. He replied with a video clip of Bane: "Your punishment must be more severe... not of your body... of your soul." 5. Charles began describing the conflict-of-interest question as an "attack on his ambassadors." It was not. No ambassador was attacked. A DRep asked, in public, whether DReps with paid IO ties should abstain on IO's proposals - a standard governance question. Reframing a question as an "attack" is what made everything that followed look justified. 6. On that false premise, Charles hosted an X Space and said, about the token holders of a project in his own ecosystem: "I don't give a shit about your token holders... I don't give a shit about your bag holders... If you attack my ambassadors, I will burn you to the ground." He also said the way out was to "apologize" and "back the fuck off." 7. When a community member said I was "obsessed," Charles replied that I have "CDS," that it is "incurable," and that people should "let him go." CDS - Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome - is a veterinary diagnosis: age-related dementia in dogs and cats. So a sitting DRep raising sourced concerns was described in the language a vet uses for a deteriorating animal. 8. Charles then posted a unity video: the only thing that can destroy Cardano is internal fighting. 9. When some Japanese DReps voted against IO's research proposal, Charles posted directly to the Japanese community: if the proposal did not pass, "Cardano will lose its scientists" and "our lab will be forced to close." He then asked the community to "delegate to dReps who support Cardano's research agenda" - in other words, to move voting power away from DReps who voted the wrong way. When that pressure did not deliver the result, the threat hardened: approve the proposal, or be responsible for ending Cardano's research entirely. Only after this also failed to work did the tone suddenly soften. 10. As hundreds of holders engaged with these concerns, Charles shifted tone - "#strongertogether," inviting conversation. 11. I took that at face value. Then I did something he never did. After he attacked Iagon, after the "burn you to the ground," after his words helped wipe ~32% off a token held by thousands - I was the one who extended a hand. I publicly offered him a private, no-recording, one-on-one call. Man to man. Not for me - for the ecosystem. The person who was attacked took the first step toward peace. 12. His public answer to that olive branch was the pattern again, in one post. He said: "Tell him to go to hell." He demanded I issue "a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said" before he would even speak. He said: "You don't treat me like a human toilet." And then, in the last three lines: "He's trash. Everyone can see it now. We move on." Read that ending again. I offered him a private, calm conversation - and his response was to call me "trash" and tell the audience that this proves something about me. He attacked, and in the same breath framed the attack as evidence against the person he attacked. That is the reversal in its purest form: be the aggressor, then announce that the aggression exposes the victim. That is the sequence. I offered a calm, private conversation - and that was the response to it. One more thing worth seeing plainly. Not days apart. The same afternoon - roughly two hours between these two posts. First, in public, to the ecosystem: "Cardano is alive. The community is engaged... You are not passive holders. You are owners." "Let me show up the way I should." "I am inviting all of you to sit down and have a real conversation." "I am 100% focused on Cardano and Midnight. #strongertogether" Roughly two hours later, to me, after I publicly offered exactly that - a private, calm, one-on-one conversation: "Tell him to go to hell." "Have him issue a public apology FOR EVERYTHING he said." "You don't treat me like a human toilet." "He's trash. Everyone can see it now." That is the gap. "Stronger together" for the audience. Two hours later, "go to hell" and "he's trash" for the person who took him up on it. A real invitation to talk does not come with a demand to grovel first - and it does not curdle into "go to hell" within the same afternoon. Look at the whole shape of this. He attacked. He did not answer the question - he went after the people who asked it. When the damage was done and holders were losing money, he posted about punishment and souls. He said in public he would burn people to the ground. He pressured an entire national community to vote his way or be blamed for the end of Cardano's research. And then, step by step, he became the victim. The question became an "attack." The critics became aggressors. The man with 1M followers and the treasury proposals became the wronged party defending the vulnerable. When I - the one who was attacked - offered peace, he framed himself as the one owed an apology, and called me "trash" for asking. That reversal has a name: DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is not a diagnosis. It is a pattern, and the record above is the pattern, step by step, in his own words. So the practical question stands: Is this conduct - the attacks, the Bane clip aimed at people losing money, the "burn you to the ground," the pressure on the Japanese community, the false "victim" framing, the rejection of a good-faith olive branch - the conduct of someone who should be trusted with hundreds of millions of ADA from the community treasury? Cardano does not have a "leader." It has a community, a treasury, and contractors who ask that community for funding. IO is one of those contractors - currently asking for hundreds of millions of ADA, with a track record of missed timelines. A contractor asking the community for money does not get to attack the members of that community for doing the exact thing the governance system was built for: participating, voting, and asking questions. Respect for ADA holders is not optional for someone requesting their treasury. It is the job. Screenshots of every quote above are attached. Read them in full, and decide for yourselves.๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡

Holger - Guarding our Vision!

14,668 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 2 Monaten

Our current timeline began in the 1800s. All modern "inventions" we see today are rehashed versions of what already existed in ancient times, stripped of its sovereignty-producing aspects, and drip-fed back to us in a lower-vibration, monetizeable form for optimal loosh production. (NOTE: The parasites cannot create. They can only subvert, so they wait for the divinely-ensouled humans to use their inherent creative energy to build new, consciousness-increasing technologies, which can then be captured & subverted into consciousness-DECREASING technologies during the next reset cycle. Their ultimate goal is to create the lowest-consciousness living environment possible, in order to squeeze maximum loosh out of that cycle's soul harvest. This is not an easy operation for the parasites to keep running, however, and just like any video game final boss, the top brass has exploitable weaknesses, as (A) the souls in this loosh farm have an extremely strong internal desire to break free from the loop they're imprisoned within, and (B) every reset deployed burns through a huge amount of loosh reserves. Not to mention, the background Black Hat alliances involved in keeping the system running are also a vulnerable house of cards, but that's a whole different conversation for another day.) Bringing us back to the technology-subversion loop we call "innovation"... The clearest example of this process, is all tech around ENERGY. If you've been following my posts for a while, you know that the narrative telling us electricity as we know it was kicked off by the invention of the lightbulb in the late-19th century, is a hilariously-false lie. In reality, that was just one example of the mass-rehashing of subverted ancient tech. Before the 1800s reset, all energy/electricity production & distribution was far more sophisticated than what we have now, and was designed to be FREE and harmonious with Earth's natural electric resonance. Following the last reset, the free energy grid from the previous civilization(s) have been deactivated, dismantled, and stripped from the Tartarian/Old World buildings, most*** aetheric transport has been shitcanned under false flags (ex: the staged Hindenburg "disaster" for airships), the expansive multi-city pneumatic-powered underground transport systems have been completely built over and replaced with trains that pump consciousness-suppressing AC frequencies into its 9-to-5 zombified passengers, etc... ***Some aetheric transport technologies were KEPT, and are still in use today, but have a phony story of fuel-consumption built around them as a means of siphoning financial energy out of passengers. The most glaring example of this is the modern aviation industry. For those who didn't know, modern commercial airliners use practically zero fuel. They only need a tiny bit to get off the ground, then once in the air, switch to free energy mode and run purely on high-altitude aether. Pilots are completely unaware this is happening due to the design of the planes, the construction of which is consolidated into a small group of in-cahoots, parasite-connected companies. (This is a whole rabbit hole on its own that will blow your brains out if you haven't looked into it yet...check out the "Jet Fuel Hoax" playlist on my Rumble channel for the deep-dive) Anyways, to review, all electricity on Earth has been downgraded into a fractured, inefficient Alternating Current (AC) form, which allows the parasitic controllers to (A) charge the human cattle money for it via their meter-based control grid, and (B) keep our cells & pineal glands under a constant state of damaging stress, as AC current (unlike the "cold" form of electricity from the Old World), produces electromagnetic frequencies that are destructive to human biology. As a final mocking touch to this modern energy grid theft & switch, the pylons used to distribute the AC powerlines across the world, are baphomet-shaped. If you thought that was just a coincidence...bless your heart. Zooming back out to the bigger historical picture once again (this has turned into a very scattered rant, bear with me lol)... Earth has been clean-wipe reset and restarted from scratch SEVERAL different times over the last roughly 6,000 years since the 3D holographic overlay was installed. Based on my personal research, I'm leaning toward there being 7 past major resets deployed in total, and we are currently locked in a war to prevent #8. But the debate is ongoing, and I'm fully open to adjusting this estimate. The signs of there definitely being MORE than just 2-3 resets as some believe, are everywhere for those with the eyes to see. Cities-turned-gutted-quarries like the Grand Canyon, petrified giants & chopped-down titan trees in some places, melted buildings in others, mudflood-BURIED buildings in others still, seashells atop mountains proving massive floods that covered the entire realm...I could go on. The reason why history is such a daunting puzzle to solve, is because we aren't just looking at one gradual timeline...we're looking at SEVERAL completely different timelines all piled on top of each other, each containing different civilizations, different destroyed technology remnants, different races (many of which non-human), all meeting different demises, over different centuries/millennia. And if it wasn't obvious by now...ALL of the official history books are useless, as different stories/A.I.-written religious texts are fabricated & mass-distributed as a core part of each reset operation, each with their own fake lore, in order to give each new population iteration a fabricated tale of a gradual ascension/family tree preceding them (as well as fake gods to keep them on their knees praying for an external savior), which ultimately is to prevent each new crop of human-vesseled souls from understanding the reality of the reset-looping world they just spawned into. (Search my posts on the 1800s "Orphan Trains" for more on the most recent example of this process being conducted at scale). To summarize all of this in the most blunt way possible, it appears as if whoever (or whatever) is managing the Earth realm, is haphazardly pressing different buttons on a video game controller every few hundred years, shooting off all sorts of different types of cataclysms left and right, in what can be broadly categorized as a "Sims"-like simulation environment. I know all of this is a very dark, jarring realization once the dots start connecting in your brain...but it's important to remember that there is no reason to despair, as CYCLES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN, and just because this one has been going for an extremely long time in human-lifetime terms...does NOT mean it's unstoppable. To the contrary, actually. We are NOT powerless pawns in this process, but active participants in it, primarily due to lack of education, and the repeated falling into the same parasite-laid traps that prevent us from awakening to our true potential, rising up, and blowing the whole game to smithereens. There are many threads pointing toward a huge shift happening behind the scenes as we speak, which is actively crippling the most critical power structures that were provably involved in at least the most recent 1800s reset, if not ALL of them. In short, as humans placed on this Earth with consciousness and problem-solving ability, I believe it's our highest duty to figure out what in the world is going on with this constantly-repeating cataclysm loop, WHO or WHAT is at the helm of it, and how we escape the cycle, so we can finally discover our true spiritual & dimensional potential as free beings without restraint. Personally, despite all of the above text-vomit having a doozy of a depressing tone...I am VERY optimistic that we are on the verge of destroying the doom-loop once and for all, and ushering in a future more beautiful than any of us can imagine under our current, intentionally-devolved 3D brainstate. But until we fully-realize this bright future through our collective rising in frequency, there is no doubt that, up until this point, we have, for millennia, been ragdolled all over the place at the whim of a mysterious reset-button-presser, and once again find ourselves scratching our heads trying to figure out what the hell happened before us considering the carnage we see everywhere...just as every other previously-reset population surely did at one point as well. But the past does not dictate the future. It provides us with information on how we can CREATE our own, desired future. What happens next is up to us. Keep learning, keep spreading your ascension-energy with those around you, and as always, STAY LOCKED IN. -B ~ ~ ~ [video cred: MY LUNCH BREAK]
37:18

Our current timeline began in the 1800s. All modern "inventions" we see today are rehashed versions of what already existed in ancient times, stripped of its sovereignty-producing aspects, and drip-fed back to us in a lower-vibration, monetizeable form for optimal loosh production. (NOTE: The parasites cannot create. They can only subvert, so they wait for the divinely-ensouled humans to use their inherent creative energy to build new, consciousness-increasing technologies, which can then be captured & subverted into consciousness-DECREASING technologies during the next reset cycle. Their ultimate goal is to create the lowest-consciousness living environment possible, in order to squeeze maximum loosh out of that cycle's soul harvest. This is not an easy operation for the parasites to keep running, however, and just like any video game final boss, the top brass has exploitable weaknesses, as (A) the souls in this loosh farm have an extremely strong internal desire to break free from the loop they're imprisoned within, and (B) every reset deployed burns through a huge amount of loosh reserves. Not to mention, the background Black Hat alliances involved in keeping the system running are also a vulnerable house of cards, but that's a whole different conversation for another day.) Bringing us back to the technology-subversion loop we call "innovation"... The clearest example of this process, is all tech around ENERGY. If you've been following my posts for a while, you know that the narrative telling us electricity as we know it was kicked off by the invention of the lightbulb in the late-19th century, is a hilariously-false lie. In reality, that was just one example of the mass-rehashing of subverted ancient tech. Before the 1800s reset, all energy/electricity production & distribution was far more sophisticated than what we have now, and was designed to be FREE and harmonious with Earth's natural electric resonance. Following the last reset, the free energy grid from the previous civilization(s) have been deactivated, dismantled, and stripped from the Tartarian/Old World buildings, most*** aetheric transport has been shitcanned under false flags (ex: the staged Hindenburg "disaster" for airships), the expansive multi-city pneumatic-powered underground transport systems have been completely built over and replaced with trains that pump consciousness-suppressing AC frequencies into its 9-to-5 zombified passengers, etc... ***Some aetheric transport technologies were KEPT, and are still in use today, but have a phony story of fuel-consumption built around them as a means of siphoning financial energy out of passengers. The most glaring example of this is the modern aviation industry. For those who didn't know, modern commercial airliners use practically zero fuel. They only need a tiny bit to get off the ground, then once in the air, switch to free energy mode and run purely on high-altitude aether. Pilots are completely unaware this is happening due to the design of the planes, the construction of which is consolidated into a small group of in-cahoots, parasite-connected companies. (This is a whole rabbit hole on its own that will blow your brains out if you haven't looked into it yet...check out the "Jet Fuel Hoax" playlist on my Rumble channel for the deep-dive) Anyways, to review, all electricity on Earth has been downgraded into a fractured, inefficient Alternating Current (AC) form, which allows the parasitic controllers to (A) charge the human cattle money for it via their meter-based control grid, and (B) keep our cells & pineal glands under a constant state of damaging stress, as AC current (unlike the "cold" form of electricity from the Old World), produces electromagnetic frequencies that are destructive to human biology. As a final mocking touch to this modern energy grid theft & switch, the pylons used to distribute the AC powerlines across the world, are baphomet-shaped. If you thought that was just a coincidence...bless your heart. Zooming back out to the bigger historical picture once again (this has turned into a very scattered rant, bear with me lol)... Earth has been clean-wipe reset and restarted from scratch SEVERAL different times over the last roughly 6,000 years since the 3D holographic overlay was installed. Based on my personal research, I'm leaning toward there being 7 past major resets deployed in total, and we are currently locked in a war to prevent #8. But the debate is ongoing, and I'm fully open to adjusting this estimate. The signs of there definitely being MORE than just 2-3 resets as some believe, are everywhere for those with the eyes to see. Cities-turned-gutted-quarries like the Grand Canyon, petrified giants & chopped-down titan trees in some places, melted buildings in others, mudflood-BURIED buildings in others still, seashells atop mountains proving massive floods that covered the entire realm...I could go on. The reason why history is such a daunting puzzle to solve, is because we aren't just looking at one gradual timeline...we're looking at SEVERAL completely different timelines all piled on top of each other, each containing different civilizations, different destroyed technology remnants, different races (many of which non-human), all meeting different demises, over different centuries/millennia. And if it wasn't obvious by now...ALL of the official history books are useless, as different stories/A.I.-written religious texts are fabricated & mass-distributed as a core part of each reset operation, each with their own fake lore, in order to give each new population iteration a fabricated tale of a gradual ascension/family tree preceding them (as well as fake gods to keep them on their knees praying for an external savior), which ultimately is to prevent each new crop of human-vesseled souls from understanding the reality of the reset-looping world they just spawned into. (Search my posts on the 1800s "Orphan Trains" for more on the most recent example of this process being conducted at scale). To summarize all of this in the most blunt way possible, it appears as if whoever (or whatever) is managing the Earth realm, is haphazardly pressing different buttons on a video game controller every few hundred years, shooting off all sorts of different types of cataclysms left and right, in what can be broadly categorized as a "Sims"-like simulation environment. I know all of this is a very dark, jarring realization once the dots start connecting in your brain...but it's important to remember that there is no reason to despair, as CYCLES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN, and just because this one has been going for an extremely long time in human-lifetime terms...does NOT mean it's unstoppable. To the contrary, actually. We are NOT powerless pawns in this process, but active participants in it, primarily due to lack of education, and the repeated falling into the same parasite-laid traps that prevent us from awakening to our true potential, rising up, and blowing the whole game to smithereens. There are many threads pointing toward a huge shift happening behind the scenes as we speak, which is actively crippling the most critical power structures that were provably involved in at least the most recent 1800s reset, if not ALL of them. In short, as humans placed on this Earth with consciousness and problem-solving ability, I believe it's our highest duty to figure out what in the world is going on with this constantly-repeating cataclysm loop, WHO or WHAT is at the helm of it, and how we escape the cycle, so we can finally discover our true spiritual & dimensional potential as free beings without restraint. Personally, despite all of the above text-vomit having a doozy of a depressing tone...I am VERY optimistic that we are on the verge of destroying the doom-loop once and for all, and ushering in a future more beautiful than any of us can imagine under our current, intentionally-devolved 3D brainstate. But until we fully-realize this bright future through our collective rising in frequency, there is no doubt that, up until this point, we have, for millennia, been ragdolled all over the place at the whim of a mysterious reset-button-presser, and once again find ourselves scratching our heads trying to figure out what the hell happened before us considering the carnage we see everywhere...just as every other previously-reset population surely did at one point as well. But the past does not dictate the future. It provides us with information on how we can CREATE our own, desired future. What happens next is up to us. Keep learning, keep spreading your ascension-energy with those around you, and as always, STAY LOCKED IN. -B ~ ~ ~ [video cred: MY LUNCH BREAK]

Ben Wehrman

43,364 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 15 Tagen

*** Test Your 9/11 Knowledge: The Explosive Evidence at the 3 WTC Towers The 50 Questions NIST Should Have Asked 20 Years Ago! WTC Building 7 Free-fall 1. How is it possible that 47-story Building 7 fell suddenly, symmetrically in free-fall acceleration, without any resistance from any of its 81 columns? 2. Why did NIST deny its free-fall for 7 years, only to be proven wrong and be forced to officially admit that it did collapse in free-fall? Symmetry 3. How, if Building 7 was damaged asymmetrically in the north-east corner on floor twelve, as per the NIST report, could it fall symmetrically downward? Shouldnโ€™t the building have tilted toward its damaged side โ€“ and not fall straight down through the path of what was the greatest resistance? Fires 4. How could a few, small, and scattered ordinary office fires have brought this Type-1 fire-protected steel-frame skyscraper down, when several dozen examples of much hotter, much larger, and longer-lasting fires have never in history brought down such a building? 5. How could normal office fires take out all the columns in the building sequentially floor by floor, in 7 seconds? 6. Why did NIST claim that the fires were still burning, up until the time of the collapse, when the photos show that they were burnt out more than an hour before the collapse? 7. Why arenโ€™t all the firefighters concerned, in the wake of the NIST report during the last 24 years, that such ordinary fightable fires can now bring skyscrapers down on top of them, and on top of the public who are told to โ€œdefend in placeโ€ in the building (and not obstruct access by firefighters)? 8. Why are many of these same firefighters calling for a new investigation of the NIST report itself? Controlled Demolition 9. Since the collapse of Building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, why did NIST avoid any serious consideration of this hypothesis? 10. How could a 40,000-ton moment-resisting and X-braced structural steel frame collapse like a house of cards in 7 seconds, with most of its columns and beams severed โ€“ one from another? 11. Why does WTC 7 have all of the key features of typical controlled demolition, and none of the features of collapse by fire? Explosions 12. Why didnโ€™t NIST include in its report on WTC 7 the half-dozen witnesses of explosions prior to its collapse, and even claim that there were no witnesses? 13. What could have caused an elevator cab to be โ€œblown 30 feet out of its hoistway,โ€ as Deputy Director of NY-Office of Emergency Management, Richard Rotanz, reported at Noon, when the building didnโ€™t collapse for another 5 hours. 14. What caused Barry Jennings and Michael Hess to be injured by explosions and subsequently trapped in the building before either Twin Tower collapsed? Foreknowledge 15. Why did Fire Chief Nick Visconti declare, โ€œWeโ€™re moving the command post over this way, that buildingโ€™s coming down!โ€? 16. How could Fire Chief Haydenโ€™s engineer declare, upon being asked, โ€œhow long until the building comes down?โ€ โ€“ then accurately state, โ€œIn its current state you have about 5 hours,โ€ when no steel-frame fire-protected high-rise had ever come down due to fire alone? 17. Why did construction workers, while walking away from Building 7 and upon hearing an explosion from the building, look straight into the CNN camera saying, โ€œYou hear that? Keep your eye on that building. That thingโ€™s coming down. The building is about to blow up, flame and debris coming downโ€? 18. Why did former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden hear a โ€œ3-2-1โ€ countdown on the radio, and subsequently hear explosions before Building 7 collapsed? 19. How could the BBC have announced, live on TV, the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it collapsed? 20. Why did CNN announce, 7 hours early, the 10:45 AM collapse of a 50-story building (obviously referring to Building 7)? Expert Statements 21. Why have more than 3,600 Architects & Engineers signed onto the petition at demanding a new 9/11 WTC investigation? 22. Why are dozens of structural engineers making statements such as: โ€œA localized failure in a steel-framed building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards, without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the buildingโ€? 23. Why did the top European controlled demolition expert declare: โ€œThat is controlled demolition. Itโ€™s been imploded. Itโ€™s a hired job. A team of experts did this? 24. Why did top forensic structural engineer, Prof. Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska, following a 4-year study of WTC 7, declare: โ€œThe collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST. Extreme Heat Molten Metal 25. What does it mean that FEMA, in its 2002 Report, including a metallurgical examination of the WTC 7 steel, revealed โ€œa phenomenon never before observed in building firesโ€ฆ.a liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel...โ€ Why did NIST eliminate this metallurgical report from their final report? 26. Did Fire Protection Engineer Jonathan Barnett know, when he said, โ€œsteel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated,โ€ that it takes 4,000ยฐF to evaporate steel? And that jet fuel and office fires donโ€™t even rise to a third of that temperature? 27. Why is there bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the crab claw excavators in the WTC pit? And out of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse. 28. Why did the first responders in the pit report, โ€œyou get down in the pile, and you see molten steel โ€“ flowing down the channel rails, like lava from a volcanoโ€? Did they know that it takes 3,000ยฐF to melt steel, and that office fires and jet fuel can only achieve half of this temperature? 29. What can explain the well-documented 3,000ยฐF temperatures that are well-documented in the WTC Twin Towers collapse aftermath? Why is there evidence of ignited thermite found by so many first responders in the WTC pile? Previously Molten Iron Microspheres 30. What does it mean that the US Geological Survey and RJ Lee Group independently documented billions of previously molten iron-rich microspheres in ALL of the WTC dust samples? Where would the required 3,000ยฐF come from? Could the ignited thermite have created those molten iron microspheres? 31. Why is bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the South Tower just minutes prior to its collapse? 32. What explains the 2009 peer-reviewed findings from the Niels Harrit research team of dual-layered red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all the independently-collected dust samples they analyzed? Why do they ignite at the same temperature as military grade โ€œsuper-thermiteโ€? Why do they produce molten iron-rich microspheres when ignited? 33. What does it mean that Harritโ€™s international research team found that the โ€œred layer of the red/gray chips in all of their WTC dust samples is active unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive materialโ€? The Twin Towers Official Explanation 34. How can the official explanation of the Twin Towersโ€™ collapse be true (that an intact top section drove down the rest of the building after weakening of some of the structural steel in the impact zone) when this top section had already been destroyed in the first 3 seconds of the collapse (telescoping in on itself) and so was not even available to drive anything down to the ground? NIST claims that the top part of the building drove the rest of the building down to the ground. Why then do none of the photos or videos show such a top part driving anything down? And why didnโ€™t that top โ€œpile driverโ€ drive down the 800-foot-tall group of columns standing for 6 seconds after the overall collapse? 35. Why did Zdenek Bazant, in his calculations for his controversial paper submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 9/13/01( only two days after 9/11) use twice the actual mass of the upper section of the North Tower above the impact floors and only one third of the actual column strength of the larger building section beneath it in his support for NIST collapse theory? a. Why is this paper still today the key theoretical basis of NISTโ€™s column failure theory? 36. Why does the destruction of the towers look more like a volcanic eruption (than a straight-down gravitational collapse) with upward and outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying solid molten objects trailing thick white smoke clouds? Witnesses of Explosions 37. Why are there 156 First Responder witnesses of explosions โ€“ seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions โ€“ many of them BEFORE the towers ever came down? 38. Why did NIST claim that there were โ€œno witnesses of explosionsโ€ when there were as many as 200 publicly recorded testimonies โ€“ many before the collapse? What could explain Fire Chief Frank Cruthersโ€™ testimony that, โ€œโ€ฆ an explosionโ€ฆ appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay, before you could see the beginning of the collapseโ€? 39. Why did 36 reporters on the day of 9/11 report the WTC destruction as an explosion-based event, most of them actual witnesses of explosions? a. Why did the mainstream national media change the story the next day from explosion-based collapses to โ€œfire-induced collapsesโ€? 40. Why did the FBI, NYPD, and FDNY on the day of 9/11 all state that they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the towers, but change their story in the following week to fire-induced collapse? Seismic Evidence 41. Why did the Richter Scale recordings from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events for both towers, more than a dozen seconds before the planes hit either tower โ€“ corroborating the explosive testimony of William Rodriguez and others of massive explosions in the basement prior to the plane hitting the buildings? 42. Why did the seismic evidence from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events, in the North Tower, 5 seconds before the heaviest debris from each tower struck the ground? And in the South Tower, 7 seconds before any debris struck the ground? Wouldnโ€™t this seismic evidence corroborate the testimony of the first responders that saw, heard, and/or felt explosions before the towers fell? 43. Why did at least 3 of the tripod-mounted cameras (two on the ground and one on the rooftop) โ€œshakeโ€ 3 to 10 seconds before each of the towers fell? Would the camera evidence corroborate the seismic evidence and the first responder's explosive testimony? Explosive Evidence 44. Since the damage from the planes and fires was so asymmetrical, why was the destruction itself so precisely symmetrical โ€“ all the way down each face of each tower? Why do the videos show precise rows of individual explosions progressing down the towers โ€“ floor by floor? 45. Why do we see in the videos isolated pin-point explosive ejections occurring 20, 40, and even 60 stories down below the downward-traveling zone of destruction in each tower? Descent Profile and Speed 46. Why did the top sections of each tower descend suddenly, smoothly, down with no stoppage or โ€œjoltโ€ upon impact with the cold, hard, intact steel columns below the floors of the plane impacts? 47. How was it possible that the top section of each Tower descended without slowing at all, but instead accelerated, as if 80,000 tons of steel beneath wasnโ€™t even there? What happened to the steel? Lateral Ejection of Steel 48. Why do we see in the videos the lateral ejection out of both of the Towers of hundreds of freely flying structural steel sections each weighing 4 to 8 tons, at 80mph, landing up to 600 feet in every direction, impaling all of the surrounding skyscrapers? Why are they trailing thick white smoke clouds when steel is not flammable in office fires, or under jet fuel conditions? Could this be due to the other byproduct of thermite โ€“ aluminum oxide ash? 49. Since FEMA officially documented a 1200-foot diameter zone of flying, fallen, and impaled structural steel beyond the footprints of both Towers, how could that steel, which comprised 1/3 of the weight of the falling section of each building, have still been available to crush the lower part as NIST claimed? Missing Floors 50. Since there were 110 concrete floors, each an acre in size, and since they were not stacked up in pile of โ€œpancakesโ€ at the bottom, and since a third of the WTC dust in the 3โ€ thick blanket across Lower Manhattan from river to river is powdered concrete, then how could the concrete floors (also 1/3 of the weight of each Tower) be available to crush the building below? 51. What extreme-high temperature could have reduced 90,000 tons of concrete in each Tower back to its original aggregate, sand, and cement powder? Demolition Access 52. How could the perpetrators have gained access to the Towers to plant high energy explosives and incendiaries? Could a massive fireproofing upgrade project in the months and years prior to 9/11 have provided access to the underside of the floor systems to apply sprayed-on nano-thermite? Is it a coincidence that the WTC fireproofing upgrades occurred mostly on the floors that were hit by the planes on 9/11? Could the largest elevator modernization in the world in the 9 months prior to 9/11 have provided access to the core columns and beams? Is it just a coincidence that Ace Elevator employees were pulled out of the Towers on 9/11 for โ€œunion meetingโ€? Destruction of Evidence 53. Why was 99% of the WTC structural steel crime scene evidence loaded onto barges starting just 2 weeks after 9/11 and shipped to China for recycling before structural engineers and metallurgists could get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation? We encougage you to ask these questions of your elected representatives and the media. We address most of these questions in our presentations and podcast and radio interviews. So get is in front of them! Who do you know that might interview RichardGage911 about the explosive destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Skyscrapers on 9/11?
0:22

*** Test Your 9/11 Knowledge: The Explosive Evidence at the 3 WTC Towers The 50 Questions NIST Should Have Asked 20 Years Ago! WTC Building 7 Free-fall 1. How is it possible that 47-story Building 7 fell suddenly, symmetrically in free-fall acceleration, without any resistance from any of its 81 columns? 2. Why did NIST deny its free-fall for 7 years, only to be proven wrong and be forced to officially admit that it did collapse in free-fall? Symmetry 3. How, if Building 7 was damaged asymmetrically in the north-east corner on floor twelve, as per the NIST report, could it fall symmetrically downward? Shouldnโ€™t the building have tilted toward its damaged side โ€“ and not fall straight down through the path of what was the greatest resistance? Fires 4. How could a few, small, and scattered ordinary office fires have brought this Type-1 fire-protected steel-frame skyscraper down, when several dozen examples of much hotter, much larger, and longer-lasting fires have never in history brought down such a building? 5. How could normal office fires take out all the columns in the building sequentially floor by floor, in 7 seconds? 6. Why did NIST claim that the fires were still burning, up until the time of the collapse, when the photos show that they were burnt out more than an hour before the collapse? 7. Why arenโ€™t all the firefighters concerned, in the wake of the NIST report during the last 24 years, that such ordinary fightable fires can now bring skyscrapers down on top of them, and on top of the public who are told to โ€œdefend in placeโ€ in the building (and not obstruct access by firefighters)? 8. Why are many of these same firefighters calling for a new investigation of the NIST report itself? Controlled Demolition 9. Since the collapse of Building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, why did NIST avoid any serious consideration of this hypothesis? 10. How could a 40,000-ton moment-resisting and X-braced structural steel frame collapse like a house of cards in 7 seconds, with most of its columns and beams severed โ€“ one from another? 11. Why does WTC 7 have all of the key features of typical controlled demolition, and none of the features of collapse by fire? Explosions 12. Why didnโ€™t NIST include in its report on WTC 7 the half-dozen witnesses of explosions prior to its collapse, and even claim that there were no witnesses? 13. What could have caused an elevator cab to be โ€œblown 30 feet out of its hoistway,โ€ as Deputy Director of NY-Office of Emergency Management, Richard Rotanz, reported at Noon, when the building didnโ€™t collapse for another 5 hours. 14. What caused Barry Jennings and Michael Hess to be injured by explosions and subsequently trapped in the building before either Twin Tower collapsed? Foreknowledge 15. Why did Fire Chief Nick Visconti declare, โ€œWeโ€™re moving the command post over this way, that buildingโ€™s coming down!โ€? 16. How could Fire Chief Haydenโ€™s engineer declare, upon being asked, โ€œhow long until the building comes down?โ€ โ€“ then accurately state, โ€œIn its current state you have about 5 hours,โ€ when no steel-frame fire-protected high-rise had ever come down due to fire alone? 17. Why did construction workers, while walking away from Building 7 and upon hearing an explosion from the building, look straight into the CNN camera saying, โ€œYou hear that? Keep your eye on that building. That thingโ€™s coming down. The building is about to blow up, flame and debris coming downโ€? 18. Why did former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden hear a โ€œ3-2-1โ€ countdown on the radio, and subsequently hear explosions before Building 7 collapsed? 19. How could the BBC have announced, live on TV, the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it collapsed? 20. Why did CNN announce, 7 hours early, the 10:45 AM collapse of a 50-story building (obviously referring to Building 7)? Expert Statements 21. Why have more than 3,600 Architects & Engineers signed onto the petition at demanding a new 9/11 WTC investigation? 22. Why are dozens of structural engineers making statements such as: โ€œA localized failure in a steel-framed building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards, without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the buildingโ€? 23. Why did the top European controlled demolition expert declare: โ€œThat is controlled demolition. Itโ€™s been imploded. Itโ€™s a hired job. A team of experts did this? 24. Why did top forensic structural engineer, Prof. Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska, following a 4-year study of WTC 7, declare: โ€œThe collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST. Extreme Heat Molten Metal 25. What does it mean that FEMA, in its 2002 Report, including a metallurgical examination of the WTC 7 steel, revealed โ€œa phenomenon never before observed in building firesโ€ฆ.a liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel...โ€ Why did NIST eliminate this metallurgical report from their final report? 26. Did Fire Protection Engineer Jonathan Barnett know, when he said, โ€œsteel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated,โ€ that it takes 4,000ยฐF to evaporate steel? And that jet fuel and office fires donโ€™t even rise to a third of that temperature? 27. Why is there bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the crab claw excavators in the WTC pit? And out of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse. 28. Why did the first responders in the pit report, โ€œyou get down in the pile, and you see molten steel โ€“ flowing down the channel rails, like lava from a volcanoโ€? Did they know that it takes 3,000ยฐF to melt steel, and that office fires and jet fuel can only achieve half of this temperature? 29. What can explain the well-documented 3,000ยฐF temperatures that are well-documented in the WTC Twin Towers collapse aftermath? Why is there evidence of ignited thermite found by so many first responders in the WTC pile? Previously Molten Iron Microspheres 30. What does it mean that the US Geological Survey and RJ Lee Group independently documented billions of previously molten iron-rich microspheres in ALL of the WTC dust samples? Where would the required 3,000ยฐF come from? Could the ignited thermite have created those molten iron microspheres? 31. Why is bright yellow molten steel or iron pouring out of the South Tower just minutes prior to its collapse? 32. What explains the 2009 peer-reviewed findings from the Niels Harrit research team of dual-layered red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all the independently-collected dust samples they analyzed? Why do they ignite at the same temperature as military grade โ€œsuper-thermiteโ€? Why do they produce molten iron-rich microspheres when ignited? 33. What does it mean that Harritโ€™s international research team found that the โ€œred layer of the red/gray chips in all of their WTC dust samples is active unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive materialโ€? The Twin Towers Official Explanation 34. How can the official explanation of the Twin Towersโ€™ collapse be true (that an intact top section drove down the rest of the building after weakening of some of the structural steel in the impact zone) when this top section had already been destroyed in the first 3 seconds of the collapse (telescoping in on itself) and so was not even available to drive anything down to the ground? NIST claims that the top part of the building drove the rest of the building down to the ground. Why then do none of the photos or videos show such a top part driving anything down? And why didnโ€™t that top โ€œpile driverโ€ drive down the 800-foot-tall group of columns standing for 6 seconds after the overall collapse? 35. Why did Zdenek Bazant, in his calculations for his controversial paper submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 9/13/01( only two days after 9/11) use twice the actual mass of the upper section of the North Tower above the impact floors and only one third of the actual column strength of the larger building section beneath it in his support for NIST collapse theory? a. Why is this paper still today the key theoretical basis of NISTโ€™s column failure theory? 36. Why does the destruction of the towers look more like a volcanic eruption (than a straight-down gravitational collapse) with upward and outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying solid molten objects trailing thick white smoke clouds? Witnesses of Explosions 37. Why are there 156 First Responder witnesses of explosions โ€“ seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions โ€“ many of them BEFORE the towers ever came down? 38. Why did NIST claim that there were โ€œno witnesses of explosionsโ€ when there were as many as 200 publicly recorded testimonies โ€“ many before the collapse? What could explain Fire Chief Frank Cruthersโ€™ testimony that, โ€œโ€ฆ an explosionโ€ฆ appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay, before you could see the beginning of the collapseโ€? 39. Why did 36 reporters on the day of 9/11 report the WTC destruction as an explosion-based event, most of them actual witnesses of explosions? a. Why did the mainstream national media change the story the next day from explosion-based collapses to โ€œfire-induced collapsesโ€? 40. Why did the FBI, NYPD, and FDNY on the day of 9/11 all state that they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the towers, but change their story in the following week to fire-induced collapse? Seismic Evidence 41. Why did the Richter Scale recordings from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events for both towers, more than a dozen seconds before the planes hit either tower โ€“ corroborating the explosive testimony of William Rodriguez and others of massive explosions in the basement prior to the plane hitting the buildings? 42. Why did the seismic evidence from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory document significant seismic events, in the North Tower, 5 seconds before the heaviest debris from each tower struck the ground? And in the South Tower, 7 seconds before any debris struck the ground? Wouldnโ€™t this seismic evidence corroborate the testimony of the first responders that saw, heard, and/or felt explosions before the towers fell? 43. Why did at least 3 of the tripod-mounted cameras (two on the ground and one on the rooftop) โ€œshakeโ€ 3 to 10 seconds before each of the towers fell? Would the camera evidence corroborate the seismic evidence and the first responder's explosive testimony? Explosive Evidence 44. Since the damage from the planes and fires was so asymmetrical, why was the destruction itself so precisely symmetrical โ€“ all the way down each face of each tower? Why do the videos show precise rows of individual explosions progressing down the towers โ€“ floor by floor? 45. Why do we see in the videos isolated pin-point explosive ejections occurring 20, 40, and even 60 stories down below the downward-traveling zone of destruction in each tower? Descent Profile and Speed 46. Why did the top sections of each tower descend suddenly, smoothly, down with no stoppage or โ€œjoltโ€ upon impact with the cold, hard, intact steel columns below the floors of the plane impacts? 47. How was it possible that the top section of each Tower descended without slowing at all, but instead accelerated, as if 80,000 tons of steel beneath wasnโ€™t even there? What happened to the steel? Lateral Ejection of Steel 48. Why do we see in the videos the lateral ejection out of both of the Towers of hundreds of freely flying structural steel sections each weighing 4 to 8 tons, at 80mph, landing up to 600 feet in every direction, impaling all of the surrounding skyscrapers? Why are they trailing thick white smoke clouds when steel is not flammable in office fires, or under jet fuel conditions? Could this be due to the other byproduct of thermite โ€“ aluminum oxide ash? 49. Since FEMA officially documented a 1200-foot diameter zone of flying, fallen, and impaled structural steel beyond the footprints of both Towers, how could that steel, which comprised 1/3 of the weight of the falling section of each building, have still been available to crush the lower part as NIST claimed? Missing Floors 50. Since there were 110 concrete floors, each an acre in size, and since they were not stacked up in pile of โ€œpancakesโ€ at the bottom, and since a third of the WTC dust in the 3โ€ thick blanket across Lower Manhattan from river to river is powdered concrete, then how could the concrete floors (also 1/3 of the weight of each Tower) be available to crush the building below? 51. What extreme-high temperature could have reduced 90,000 tons of concrete in each Tower back to its original aggregate, sand, and cement powder? Demolition Access 52. How could the perpetrators have gained access to the Towers to plant high energy explosives and incendiaries? Could a massive fireproofing upgrade project in the months and years prior to 9/11 have provided access to the underside of the floor systems to apply sprayed-on nano-thermite? Is it a coincidence that the WTC fireproofing upgrades occurred mostly on the floors that were hit by the planes on 9/11? Could the largest elevator modernization in the world in the 9 months prior to 9/11 have provided access to the core columns and beams? Is it just a coincidence that Ace Elevator employees were pulled out of the Towers on 9/11 for โ€œunion meetingโ€? Destruction of Evidence 53. Why was 99% of the WTC structural steel crime scene evidence loaded onto barges starting just 2 weeks after 9/11 and shipped to China for recycling before structural engineers and metallurgists could get their hands on it to do a proper forensic investigation? We encougage you to ask these questions of your elected representatives and the media. We address most of these questions in our presentations and podcast and radio interviews. So get is in front of them! Who do you know that might interview RichardGage911 about the explosive destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Skyscrapers on 9/11?

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

44,559 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

๐Ÿ›ธ Vegas UFOs ๐Ÿ›ธ Wanna support my efforts? Info. is at the end. And, as always, my comments are in ( ). "Jim Dolan (owns Sphere) and Jane Rosenthal made me an offer: 'Could you build an observatory on top of the Sphere?' Dolan is interested in finding whether there is some alien intelligence out there." ~Avi (Since I live here, this is pretty cool! It also doesn't hurt that the owner (Dolan) of my favorite basketball team (NEW YORK KNICKS), and 2nd-fav hockey team (New York Rangers) is one of the folks who helped get this started. Learn something new every day!) Dr. Avi Loeb: "This one is about Sphere in Las Vegas. As you know, it's the most impressive venue for entertainment in the world. Not only have I been [there], I've been to the top of the Sphere, which is like 120 meters high. Here you see me from inside the Sphere. This is the exosphere, by the way, it's covered with LED displays. We went all the way to the top. Why? "Because a year ago, two very distinguished visitors came to the front door of my home. By the way, lots of interesting people show up at my front door. This was Jim Dolan, who owns the Madison Square Garden, as you know, and also the Sphere, and jane rosenthal, the CEO of Tribeca Enterprises, and they made me an offer that I cannot refuse. I'm leading the Galileo Project to look for unusual objects around the Earth. And they said, 'Could you build an observatory on top of the Sphere?' "Because, you know, Jim Dolan really is interested in science, and especially in finding, you know, whether there is some alien intelligence out there. And I said, 'Of course! I will be delighted.' So that was September 2024, one year after the Sphere was opened with a concert, as you may know. I don't know if you've been there." Joe Rogan: "Yeah, I've been there for the UFC." Avi: "Yeah. UFC, exactly. So anyway, I was there just a few months ago with my research team. We went all the way to the top and installed, as you can see here, an array of infrared cameras that monitors the entire sky above Vegas, at all times. So you can see some of these images show the landscape of Vegas in the background. It's like a freckle, you know, on top of the Sphere, the exosphere, which is the biggest display on Earth. But we measured that there is not much light pollution, actually, and we can operate this observatory." (I'm surprised they measured "not much light pollution" since we all know that one nickname for Vegas is The City of Lights due to the millions of lights from the casinos on The Strip and surrounding area.) Avi: "We also put an array of visible-light cameras there, and it's operating, okay? And we hope to see a few million objects over the sky of Vegas and decide whether any of them has performance that deviates from the envelope of human-made technologies." (Absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if anybody craps on it, ask them if they're even interested in this subject.) Avi: "How do we do that? We have the Sphere as one point, but then we put two copies of that observatory ten kilometers away on a triangle. And that allows us to look at objects in the sky from different directions, just like we have two eyes so we can gage the distance. So here we have three eyes looking at the sky above Vegas, and we can tell the distance, the velocity, the acceleration of objects, and ask whether they are lying within the performance envelopes of human-made objects. And that would be amazing, it's very exciting." (It would be nice if there were people who could (allegedly) summon UAP to the Vegas area by meditating or using technology. Oh, wait... ๐Ÿ‘ฝ ) Avi: "I see that also as an opportunity to communicate to the public the excitement about science. That's what Jim Dolan and Jane Rosenthal really wanted to deliver. And I'm hoping that we will find something really anomalous. You know, because, as we know, the intelligence agencies are reporting to the U.S. Congress about objects they cannot identify. And, you know, that could be two things." (It can be more than two things. A few possibilities: Foreign adversaries. A human, non-state actor that has acquired a technological breakthrough. A previous human civilization that had a technological breakthrough, survived a cataclysm, and remains hidden on this planet in smaller numbers. A non-human intelligence that's based here and has always been here. A non-human intelligence from another planet. Time-traveling humans. Non-humans who exist in other dimensions that humans can't perceive with their normal senses. Aka Interdimensional or a shadow biome. Nod to Dr. Eric Davis for the latter.) ~ Avi: "They're getting, you know, the defense budget for 2026 is a trillion dollars, okay? If they tell us that with a trillion dollars, there are still objects they cannot identify above the U.S., they're not doing their job. They're not doing their job, and we should be worried." (100%. But there may be some folks in government who CAN identify some of these objects and they're keeping that information hidden for various reasons.) Avi: "Who sent these objects? Could it be adversarial nations? Okay? That's one possibility, which has to do with national security. The second possibility is that it's maybe something from outside of this Earth which would be even more significant." (Again, there are plenty of other possibilities.) Avi: "So either way, we need to figure this out. And I don't think I'm wasting my time leading the Galileo Project to figure out whether there are anomalies, you know, that go beyond human-made technologies. Because if it turns out that all the objects are human made, I will be happy to deliver the set of sensors we developed with the machine-learning software that we developed, to the Department of War ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ so that they can employ it for national-security purposes. So my time was not wasted, as a scientist. I'm doing something useful to society." Rogan: "Of course." Avi: "The Department of War can use it. I have no problem. Everything made by humans, by the way, is boring, as far as I'm concerned. I want to see something from outside the solar system, which is not what the government should be about. The government should worry about national security, not about what lies outside the solar system. That's my job definition as an astrophysicist, okay?" (Not to sound like a broken record, but...some of what we're seeing that appears to be anomalous may be from within this solar system or, potentially, Earth-based.) Avi: "And so, I feel that this is worthy [of] pursuing, but the Galileo Project is really the first organized project that constructed a reliable set of sensors in an observatory configuration that does systematic study of the sky to collect millions of objects in the sky per year. We have three observatories, one in Las Vegas, as I mentioned. And by the way, this is the first time it's mentioned publicly, so..." Rogan: "That's amazing." Avi: "And another one in Massachusetts, and a third one in Pennsylvania. They were all funded by people who approached me and said, 'Here is the money.'" Rogan: "Let me ask you this: If it wasn't for those, how many observatories are looking for objects that are not from this Earth? Like, is that very rare?" Avi: "None." Rogan: "None?" Avi: "Well, there are some teams that are, you know, doing it, making a trip to collect some data." Rogan: "There is not constant observation?" Avi: "Of scientific-quality data? No." Rogan: "That's crazy." Avi: "That's crazy! That's what I'm saying." ~ (One of the groups that collected data was the AAWSAP/BAASS team headed up by Dr. James Lacatski. This is from my March 2024 post... Here's an excerpt from "Initial Revelations" by Lacatski, Kelleher and George Knapp. Chapter 18 Integrated Sensor Package to Detect UAP An autonomous sensor package to detect UAP for AAWSAP BAASS was developed by an engineering team located at Bigelow Aerospace. The following is a short summary of the specifications by which the BAASS engineering team began designing an autonomous sensor package. The project started at the conceptual stage with a meeting in late January 2009 and a complete operational prototype was built by August 2009. Design Goals: Device will operate unattended Autonomous data collection Survivability: weather, vandalism, critters Portable: โ€œTwo men and a truck.โ€ Limited power No reliance on AC power Must be sized for full nighttime operations Sufficient communications May use WiFi, satellite phone, and cellular phone transmis- sions as the situation warrants Internet appliance for remote connection Short-range sensing (<20ft.) Long-range sensing (up to 5-mile planar radius, indeterminate altitude) Internal clock: GPS or network time-based COTS (Commercial Off-The_Shelf ~Joe) or very near COTS components only Reduce on-site maintenance to the minimum possible Camouflage based on geographic location Sensor Suite Visual, IR, near-IR, and UV spectra cameras Microwave band detection Radio band detection EMI detection in the electronics emission band RADAR LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Audio Radiation (gamma, beta, alpha) Gravimeter See equipment details and illustrations in Tweets 2 and 3. ~End "IR" Excerpt~ ~ Avi: "And, by the way, I gave a briefing to the U.S. congress on May 1, 2025 and Congresswoman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna was there and she was very excited about the work we are doing. But the day before that, I visited an office in the Pentagon that is called the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office - AARO - All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And I asked them, 'You looked into all these unidentified objects reported in the past by military personnel. Did anything trigger your attention as something truly anonymous?' And they said, 'Not really. There are some reports by FBI agents that's really crazy stuff, but we don't have any data from instruments.'" (Here's a tweet from me about the director of AARO, Jon Kosloski, describing three, potentially, anomalous cases AARO is analyzing. ) ~ Avi: "And this is an office within the Pentagon which is funded to figure out things. And so, obviously, what they might want to do is imitate the Galileo Project that I'm leading. But you would think that it would be sort of the vested interest of government, you know, to invest in research related to that, which is what the Galileo Project is doing." Rogan: "Well, here's the thing. I would have thought it was already done." Avi: "I don't know." Rogan: "Until we're having this conversation, I can't believe that they're not monitoring the sky constantly for anomalous objects." Avi: "Well, you remember the Chinese spy balloon that was missed, right? And shot down?" Rogan: "Yes. Yeah, but that was silly." Avi: "So the thing to keep in mind, they're getting data on things in the sky, but if you don't have the right software now, with AI. If you don't have high-quality scientists, the way that the Manhattan Project employed, you might not figure out things. There is a reason why the Manhattan Project recruited the very best scientists. "So I say, put a billion dollars on this or more, bring in the best scientists in the world to figure it out. I'm funded at the level of millions of dollars through the Galileo Project. The government can do a billion... What is a billion dollars? It's a drop in the bucket for the Pentagon. But, if, you know, you should think about the potential risk from drones that are used by adversarial nations and..." (1000%. Put a billion dollars into that and also an AAWSAP-like program that is run by a PUBLIC company, and make all of their data available to us as soon as they receive it.) ~ If you appreciate what I do on Twitter/X (and my Blog and, occasional, YT), and wanna support my efforts, you can subscribe on here. Or.... Patreon - PayPal - ufojoe11@aol.com Venmo - My Patreon is simple. No hidden content and no tiers. If you DO support me, it will be much appreciated. If you can't afford it, don't think twice. I've been there and I get it. If you don't think my content is worth supporting, I still appreciate you reading and commenting on tweets, articles and videos.
8:21

๐Ÿ›ธ Vegas UFOs ๐Ÿ›ธ Wanna support my efforts? Info. is at the end. And, as always, my comments are in ( ). "Jim Dolan (owns Sphere) and Jane Rosenthal made me an offer: 'Could you build an observatory on top of the Sphere?' Dolan is interested in finding whether there is some alien intelligence out there." ~Avi (Since I live here, this is pretty cool! It also doesn't hurt that the owner (Dolan) of my favorite basketball team (NEW YORK KNICKS), and 2nd-fav hockey team (New York Rangers) is one of the folks who helped get this started. Learn something new every day!) Dr. Avi Loeb: "This one is about Sphere in Las Vegas. As you know, it's the most impressive venue for entertainment in the world. Not only have I been [there], I've been to the top of the Sphere, which is like 120 meters high. Here you see me from inside the Sphere. This is the exosphere, by the way, it's covered with LED displays. We went all the way to the top. Why? "Because a year ago, two very distinguished visitors came to the front door of my home. By the way, lots of interesting people show up at my front door. This was Jim Dolan, who owns the Madison Square Garden, as you know, and also the Sphere, and jane rosenthal, the CEO of Tribeca Enterprises, and they made me an offer that I cannot refuse. I'm leading the Galileo Project to look for unusual objects around the Earth. And they said, 'Could you build an observatory on top of the Sphere?' "Because, you know, Jim Dolan really is interested in science, and especially in finding, you know, whether there is some alien intelligence out there. And I said, 'Of course! I will be delighted.' So that was September 2024, one year after the Sphere was opened with a concert, as you may know. I don't know if you've been there." Joe Rogan: "Yeah, I've been there for the UFC." Avi: "Yeah. UFC, exactly. So anyway, I was there just a few months ago with my research team. We went all the way to the top and installed, as you can see here, an array of infrared cameras that monitors the entire sky above Vegas, at all times. So you can see some of these images show the landscape of Vegas in the background. It's like a freckle, you know, on top of the Sphere, the exosphere, which is the biggest display on Earth. But we measured that there is not much light pollution, actually, and we can operate this observatory." (I'm surprised they measured "not much light pollution" since we all know that one nickname for Vegas is The City of Lights due to the millions of lights from the casinos on The Strip and surrounding area.) Avi: "We also put an array of visible-light cameras there, and it's operating, okay? And we hope to see a few million objects over the sky of Vegas and decide whether any of them has performance that deviates from the envelope of human-made technologies." (Absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if anybody craps on it, ask them if they're even interested in this subject.) Avi: "How do we do that? We have the Sphere as one point, but then we put two copies of that observatory ten kilometers away on a triangle. And that allows us to look at objects in the sky from different directions, just like we have two eyes so we can gage the distance. So here we have three eyes looking at the sky above Vegas, and we can tell the distance, the velocity, the acceleration of objects, and ask whether they are lying within the performance envelopes of human-made objects. And that would be amazing, it's very exciting." (It would be nice if there were people who could (allegedly) summon UAP to the Vegas area by meditating or using technology. Oh, wait... ๐Ÿ‘ฝ ) Avi: "I see that also as an opportunity to communicate to the public the excitement about science. That's what Jim Dolan and Jane Rosenthal really wanted to deliver. And I'm hoping that we will find something really anomalous. You know, because, as we know, the intelligence agencies are reporting to the U.S. Congress about objects they cannot identify. And, you know, that could be two things." (It can be more than two things. A few possibilities: Foreign adversaries. A human, non-state actor that has acquired a technological breakthrough. A previous human civilization that had a technological breakthrough, survived a cataclysm, and remains hidden on this planet in smaller numbers. A non-human intelligence that's based here and has always been here. A non-human intelligence from another planet. Time-traveling humans. Non-humans who exist in other dimensions that humans can't perceive with their normal senses. Aka Interdimensional or a shadow biome. Nod to Dr. Eric Davis for the latter.) ~ Avi: "They're getting, you know, the defense budget for 2026 is a trillion dollars, okay? If they tell us that with a trillion dollars, there are still objects they cannot identify above the U.S., they're not doing their job. They're not doing their job, and we should be worried." (100%. But there may be some folks in government who CAN identify some of these objects and they're keeping that information hidden for various reasons.) Avi: "Who sent these objects? Could it be adversarial nations? Okay? That's one possibility, which has to do with national security. The second possibility is that it's maybe something from outside of this Earth which would be even more significant." (Again, there are plenty of other possibilities.) Avi: "So either way, we need to figure this out. And I don't think I'm wasting my time leading the Galileo Project to figure out whether there are anomalies, you know, that go beyond human-made technologies. Because if it turns out that all the objects are human made, I will be happy to deliver the set of sensors we developed with the machine-learning software that we developed, to the Department of War ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ so that they can employ it for national-security purposes. So my time was not wasted, as a scientist. I'm doing something useful to society." Rogan: "Of course." Avi: "The Department of War can use it. I have no problem. Everything made by humans, by the way, is boring, as far as I'm concerned. I want to see something from outside the solar system, which is not what the government should be about. The government should worry about national security, not about what lies outside the solar system. That's my job definition as an astrophysicist, okay?" (Not to sound like a broken record, but...some of what we're seeing that appears to be anomalous may be from within this solar system or, potentially, Earth-based.) Avi: "And so, I feel that this is worthy [of] pursuing, but the Galileo Project is really the first organized project that constructed a reliable set of sensors in an observatory configuration that does systematic study of the sky to collect millions of objects in the sky per year. We have three observatories, one in Las Vegas, as I mentioned. And by the way, this is the first time it's mentioned publicly, so..." Rogan: "That's amazing." Avi: "And another one in Massachusetts, and a third one in Pennsylvania. They were all funded by people who approached me and said, 'Here is the money.'" Rogan: "Let me ask you this: If it wasn't for those, how many observatories are looking for objects that are not from this Earth? Like, is that very rare?" Avi: "None." Rogan: "None?" Avi: "Well, there are some teams that are, you know, doing it, making a trip to collect some data." Rogan: "There is not constant observation?" Avi: "Of scientific-quality data? No." Rogan: "That's crazy." Avi: "That's crazy! That's what I'm saying." ~ (One of the groups that collected data was the AAWSAP/BAASS team headed up by Dr. James Lacatski. This is from my March 2024 post... Here's an excerpt from "Initial Revelations" by Lacatski, Kelleher and George Knapp. Chapter 18 Integrated Sensor Package to Detect UAP An autonomous sensor package to detect UAP for AAWSAP BAASS was developed by an engineering team located at Bigelow Aerospace. The following is a short summary of the specifications by which the BAASS engineering team began designing an autonomous sensor package. The project started at the conceptual stage with a meeting in late January 2009 and a complete operational prototype was built by August 2009. Design Goals: Device will operate unattended Autonomous data collection Survivability: weather, vandalism, critters Portable: โ€œTwo men and a truck.โ€ Limited power No reliance on AC power Must be sized for full nighttime operations Sufficient communications May use WiFi, satellite phone, and cellular phone transmis- sions as the situation warrants Internet appliance for remote connection Short-range sensing (<20ft.) Long-range sensing (up to 5-mile planar radius, indeterminate altitude) Internal clock: GPS or network time-based COTS (Commercial Off-The_Shelf ~Joe) or very near COTS components only Reduce on-site maintenance to the minimum possible Camouflage based on geographic location Sensor Suite Visual, IR, near-IR, and UV spectra cameras Microwave band detection Radio band detection EMI detection in the electronics emission band RADAR LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Audio Radiation (gamma, beta, alpha) Gravimeter See equipment details and illustrations in Tweets 2 and 3. ~End "IR" Excerpt~ ~ Avi: "And, by the way, I gave a briefing to the U.S. congress on May 1, 2025 and Congresswoman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna was there and she was very excited about the work we are doing. But the day before that, I visited an office in the Pentagon that is called the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office - AARO - All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And I asked them, 'You looked into all these unidentified objects reported in the past by military personnel. Did anything trigger your attention as something truly anonymous?' And they said, 'Not really. There are some reports by FBI agents that's really crazy stuff, but we don't have any data from instruments.'" (Here's a tweet from me about the director of AARO, Jon Kosloski, describing three, potentially, anomalous cases AARO is analyzing. ) ~ Avi: "And this is an office within the Pentagon which is funded to figure out things. And so, obviously, what they might want to do is imitate the Galileo Project that I'm leading. But you would think that it would be sort of the vested interest of government, you know, to invest in research related to that, which is what the Galileo Project is doing." Rogan: "Well, here's the thing. I would have thought it was already done." Avi: "I don't know." Rogan: "Until we're having this conversation, I can't believe that they're not monitoring the sky constantly for anomalous objects." Avi: "Well, you remember the Chinese spy balloon that was missed, right? And shot down?" Rogan: "Yes. Yeah, but that was silly." Avi: "So the thing to keep in mind, they're getting data on things in the sky, but if you don't have the right software now, with AI. If you don't have high-quality scientists, the way that the Manhattan Project employed, you might not figure out things. There is a reason why the Manhattan Project recruited the very best scientists. "So I say, put a billion dollars on this or more, bring in the best scientists in the world to figure it out. I'm funded at the level of millions of dollars through the Galileo Project. The government can do a billion... What is a billion dollars? It's a drop in the bucket for the Pentagon. But, if, you know, you should think about the potential risk from drones that are used by adversarial nations and..." (1000%. Put a billion dollars into that and also an AAWSAP-like program that is run by a PUBLIC company, and make all of their data available to us as soon as they receive it.) ~ If you appreciate what I do on Twitter/X (and my Blog and, occasional, YT), and wanna support my efforts, you can subscribe on here. Or.... Patreon - PayPal - [email protected] Venmo - My Patreon is simple. No hidden content and no tiers. If you DO support me, it will be much appreciated. If you can't afford it, don't think twice. I've been there and I get it. If you don't think my content is worth supporting, I still appreciate you reading and commenting on tweets, articles and videos.

Joe Murgia

67,464 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 9 Monaten