正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

CK exploding Rode mic is going viral again, bc it's wrong. More absurd CK theories go more viral. It would take less than an afternoon to demonstrate the theory, Jon Bray has been promising to do a simulated test of his theory for over 6mo. Where's that at? Shaped... charges are not uncommon. The video below is some dude in flip flops making a shaped charge with PETN (angry snow). They don't miniaturize well below a certain threshold. 2.5g is very small and you can see how ineffective it was. The charge is still an explosive and still sends pieces in all directions. A HPE blasting cap alone, even smaller and cleaner, would be more effective. Smoke, energetic flash, burn, shrapnel - you see none of that in CK video. The wound makes no sense either. It wasn't a shaped charged in Charlie Kirk's Rode mic. More slop and nonsense. The black pieces in the backseat could easily be something else or it is from the Rode mic, that most likely simply got stepped on and shattered. If it was from an explosion inside, those pieces would have ripped through his cotton t-shirt. Shaped charges pulverize sand into dust, classic hallmark. I don't know why Candace is having such a hard time imagining someone stepped on the mic or it got caught in the seat rail and chair slid into it. We see no burns, no shrapnel, there's no flash on CK. It's simply not what happened that day and it goes viral bc it's wrong. Shaped charges (27,000 fps) are even more destructive than a 30.06 (2,700 fps). It's essentially a copper cone the inverts and turns into a molten slug that blows through armored plate. The bullet would go through and through, but so would a shaped charge. Candace should've asked Erika for one thing - CK's X-RAY. EK is the only one who has access to it. We still don't know how CK died. We don't know if his neck vertebrae were damaged, don't know what went into his next and from what direction. Until you have that, there's no way to know. Doesn't mean ppl need to invent SLoP to layer over the fed slop.show more

ᵀᴿᴵᴸᴸᴵᴼᴺ

25,008 subscribers

15,206 次观看 • 24 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

‼️Candace Owens Just BROKE Down the Exploding Mic Theory in Detail — And It’s Looking More CREDIBLE Than the Official FED-SLOP Story 🧐 Candace Owens spent a significant portion of tonight’s episode walking through the exploding microphone theory regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She explained how Charlie began using two microphones (his usual handheld + a wireless Rode mic clipped to his shirt) during his Fall 2024 tour — something he hadn’t done before. The theory, originally put forward by X user John Bray, suggests that the small wireless Rode microphone was rigged with a shaped charge (likely PETN). Unlike a regular explosion that would go in all directions, a shaped charge is designed to direct the blast in one specific direction — functioning almost like a bullet. Candace noted that if this was the case, the explosion was likely intended to hit Charlie in the chest. The fact that it hit his neck instead may have been a miscalculation or malfunction. She pointed out that claiming a 30-06 bullet was stopped by Charlie’s “Superman neck” is far less believable than a directed explosive going slightly off target. This theory also lines up with the PETN connections she discussed yesterday involving the Butler assassination attempt and other suspicious events. While Candace has been careful not to definitively claim this is what happened, she made it clear that this theory is currently more plausible than the official narrative we’ve been given. FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT this, and watch her full episode linked below. The official story keeps getting harder to believe. ⚠️My channel is under coordinated attack to bankrupt and silence this investigation into the Charlie Kirk assassination. If you believe in independent journalism and want the truth to keep coming, your support right now is everything. DONATE Here:

‼️Candace Owens Just BROKE Down the Exploding Mic Theory in Detail — And It’s Looking More CREDIBLE Than the Official FED-SLOP Story 🧐 Candace Owens spent a significant portion of tonight’s episode walking through the exploding microphone theory regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She explained how Charlie began using two microphones (his usual handheld + a wireless Rode mic clipped to his shirt) during his Fall 2024 tour — something he hadn’t done before. The theory, originally put forward by X user John Bray, suggests that the small wireless Rode microphone was rigged with a shaped charge (likely PETN). Unlike a regular explosion that would go in all directions, a shaped charge is designed to direct the blast in one specific direction — functioning almost like a bullet. Candace noted that if this was the case, the explosion was likely intended to hit Charlie in the chest. The fact that it hit his neck instead may have been a miscalculation or malfunction. She pointed out that claiming a 30-06 bullet was stopped by Charlie’s “Superman neck” is far less believable than a directed explosive going slightly off target. This theory also lines up with the PETN connections she discussed yesterday involving the Butler assassination attempt and other suspicious events. While Candace has been careful not to definitively claim this is what happened, she made it clear that this theory is currently more plausible than the official narrative we’ve been given. FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT this, and watch her full episode linked below. The official story keeps getting harder to believe. ⚠️My channel is under coordinated attack to bankrupt and silence this investigation into the Charlie Kirk assassination. If you believe in independent journalism and want the truth to keep coming, your support right now is everything. DONATE Here:

Project Constitution

90,816 次观看 • 1 个月前

Candace Owens: “I’ve been saying that his Rode mic was rigged, but in order for my theory to be true, the Rode mic would have had to explode into a million pieces.” A theory is not evidence. Just because someone has a theory doesn’t make it true. We’re now at the point where Candace Owens is saying that Tyler Robinson didn’t kill Charlie Kirk and that a microphone somehow played a role instead. This is getting more bizarre by the day. Am I the only one who thinks this has gone completely off the rails?

Candace Owens: “I’ve been saying that his Rode mic was rigged, but in order for my theory to be true, the Rode mic would have had to explode into a million pieces.” A theory is not evidence. Just because someone has a theory doesn’t make it true. We’re now at the point where Candace Owens is saying that Tyler Robinson didn’t kill Charlie Kirk and that a microphone somehow played a role instead. This is getting more bizarre by the day. Am I the only one who thinks this has gone completely off the rails?

Tamera Nealy

54,965 次观看 • 17 天前

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: “One on Iran and one on Cuba. Is Iran now bigger foreign policy priority for you than China and on Cuba — the Cuban government —” President Trump: “Iran is just a military operation. To me, Iran is something that was essentially largely over in two or three days because the Navy was wiped out almost immediately. The air force came next, the anti-aircraft came next. I mean, we're flying over Iran. We could take out their electric capacity in one hour. We have all the there's nothing they can do right now because everything is knocked out. They have no — again, no radar, no anti-aircraft. They have nothing, and we don't — and it was a decision I made. We discussed it. Pete, Marco, JD all of us, Chris. We discussed it. We can knock out their electricity in a matter of minutes if we wanted to. There's nothing they can do about it. We can knock out their oil in Kharg Island. The only thing we didn't take down was the oil. Because if we knock out, I call them the pipes. Very complex. But if you do that, it will take them forever to rebuild, meaning whoever — and hopefully it's a sane group of people, but whoever it is, it's going to be running that, and we're going to try to get people that are going to run it well. And you know, it's going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be, you know, if you go back, it used to be a very — the people are great. The people are smart and energetic and it used to be very successful. Now, it's a country run by fear. It's a country where they tell protesters, don't go outside, because if you do, we're going to kill you....Well, Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco, and we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon. We're really focused on this, but we're dealing with Cuba. Marco, do you want to say a couple of words about it?” Secretary of State Rubio: “Yeah. I mean, Cuba has an economy that doesn't work and a political and governmental system. They can't fix it. It's not dramatic enough. It's not going to fix it, so they've got some big decisions to make over there.” Gutierrez: “But Secretary — Secretary Rubio, do you support and I know this is up to Congress, but do you support easing the Cuban trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?” Rubio: “Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island. The law has been the embargo is codified. And — but the bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a nonfunctional economy. It's an economy that has survived. It's for 40 — that revolution — it's not even a revolution, that thing they have — has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore, so they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge are — they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge. That's what happened.” Trump: “And the relationship we have with Venezuela has been, I think you could almost say, incredible. It's been really good. It's been good for Venezuela and it's been good for us. And I congratulate the Venezuelan baseball team because that was a big — that was a big win. And I guess they play another game tonight in the finals.” Rubio: “Against the U.S.” Trump: “And I said a lot of good things have happened to Venezuela lately. This is the first time they've ever been in the finals, and it was pretty exciting.

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: “One on Iran and one on Cuba. Is Iran now bigger foreign policy priority for you than China and on Cuba — the Cuban government —” President Trump: “Iran is just a military operation. To me, Iran is something that was essentially largely over in two or three days because the Navy was wiped out almost immediately. The air force came next, the anti-aircraft came next. I mean, we're flying over Iran. We could take out their electric capacity in one hour. We have all the there's nothing they can do right now because everything is knocked out. They have no — again, no radar, no anti-aircraft. They have nothing, and we don't — and it was a decision I made. We discussed it. Pete, Marco, JD all of us, Chris. We discussed it. We can knock out their electricity in a matter of minutes if we wanted to. There's nothing they can do about it. We can knock out their oil in Kharg Island. The only thing we didn't take down was the oil. Because if we knock out, I call them the pipes. Very complex. But if you do that, it will take them forever to rebuild, meaning whoever — and hopefully it's a sane group of people, but whoever it is, it's going to be running that, and we're going to try to get people that are going to run it well. And you know, it's going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be, you know, if you go back, it used to be a very — the people are great. The people are smart and energetic and it used to be very successful. Now, it's a country run by fear. It's a country where they tell protesters, don't go outside, because if you do, we're going to kill you....Well, Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco, and we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon. We're really focused on this, but we're dealing with Cuba. Marco, do you want to say a couple of words about it?” Secretary of State Rubio: “Yeah. I mean, Cuba has an economy that doesn't work and a political and governmental system. They can't fix it. It's not dramatic enough. It's not going to fix it, so they've got some big decisions to make over there.” Gutierrez: “But Secretary — Secretary Rubio, do you support and I know this is up to Congress, but do you support easing the Cuban trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?” Rubio: “Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island. The law has been the embargo is codified. And — but the bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a nonfunctional economy. It's an economy that has survived. It's for 40 — that revolution — it's not even a revolution, that thing they have — has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore, so they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge are — they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge. That's what happened.” Trump: “And the relationship we have with Venezuela has been, I think you could almost say, incredible. It's been really good. It's been good for Venezuela and it's been good for us. And I congratulate the Venezuelan baseball team because that was a big — that was a big win. And I guess they play another game tonight in the finals.” Rubio: “Against the U.S.” Trump: “And I said a lot of good things have happened to Venezuela lately. This is the first time they've ever been in the finals, and it was pretty exciting.

Curtis Houck

175,437 次观看 • 4 个月前

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of Salvo.Scot explains how. "In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum. "So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with. "The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on. "We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake. "Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid. "And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything. "Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced. "Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'. Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement. "Well, what the sad afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah. "And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No. "Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally. "There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards. "So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review. "And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true." Sara Salyers on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of Salvo.Scot explains how. "In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum. "So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with. "The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on. "We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake. "Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid. "And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything. "Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced. "Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'. Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement. "Well, what the sad afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah. "And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No. "Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally. "There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards. "So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review. "And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true." Sara Salyers on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

ScotNews

21,466 次观看 • 1 年前

It seems that everyone has come to the SAME conclusion that Charlie Kirk was NOT shot with a .30-06. Where do we go from here? - 99.9% NOT a front shot from a .30-06. This is why it is hard to progress into what actually happened and where the shooter actually was or with what weapon or projectile. - The biggest tell is NO EXIT WOUND and the minimal damage that was seen. The ballistics also do not make sense at all. - The angle of the shot and location would most likely NOT have had any disruptions or have STRUCK ANYTHING in its path besides soft tissue and muscle, etc. NOT even striking any bones, which would not in general cause it to change its path and angle another staggering 81 degrees to enter down into Charlie's body. The shot would have EASILY went straight through and would have easily shattered any bones along the way, especially in the human neck, if it even hit any. What makes this entire situation difficult to conclude and to progress in the state of affairs is the fact that there is NO EXIT WOUND, and the only hole we see looks LIKE AN EXIT WOUND and NOT an ENTRANCE WOUND. cc: Mario Nawfal, RT

It seems that everyone has come to the SAME conclusion that Charlie Kirk was NOT shot with a .30-06. Where do we go from here? - 99.9% NOT a front shot from a .30-06. This is why it is hard to progress into what actually happened and where the shooter actually was or with what weapon or projectile. - The biggest tell is NO EXIT WOUND and the minimal damage that was seen. The ballistics also do not make sense at all. - The angle of the shot and location would most likely NOT have had any disruptions or have STRUCK ANYTHING in its path besides soft tissue and muscle, etc. NOT even striking any bones, which would not in general cause it to change its path and angle another staggering 81 degrees to enter down into Charlie's body. The shot would have EASILY went straight through and would have easily shattered any bones along the way, especially in the human neck, if it even hit any. What makes this entire situation difficult to conclude and to progress in the state of affairs is the fact that there is NO EXIT WOUND, and the only hole we see looks LIKE AN EXIT WOUND and NOT an ENTRANCE WOUND. cc: Mario Nawfal, RT

The SCIF

60,377 次观看 • 9 个月前

Your observations are almost correct, but your conclusions are not. What you see flying out, as what others thought was his ear piece, is not his ear piece. It is his chain he had around his neck, with, what I am pretty certain, a cross on it, which all Christians would wear, if they have a chain on their necks. So, what apparently happened, which seems so astronomically unlikely, is the bullet did not hit him in the neck first, but hit him in the chest, and to be more specific in that cross. So, after a hit into that cross, his chain snaps, and it is that which you see flying out backwards. When the chain snaps, and starts flying up and backwards, it also pulls up the front edge of is shirt, in less than 0.1 sec. So, that is how that anomaly is explained at the same time. What happens next, is his mic had a wire under his shirt. It kind of just laid in the back of his neck, going around his shoulder, and disappearing under his shirt on the front. That wire must have had some contact with this chain, or even being wrapped around it like may be just one turn. So, when that chain snaps and starts flying backwards, it starts pulling on his mic at the same time. Just the mic had a wire that was most certainly lose a little bit. So, that is why that responds with a few tens of a second delay. But still, the mic also, after jerking around for a few tens of a second disappears completely of his shirt. So, basically, the bullet hits his cross first, which is on his chain, would explain all of these anomalies at the same time, including the wire on the back of his neck being pulled around from the front, and thus bulging his shirt in the back a little bit. If you pay all of this is slow motion, you will see that it all gets seqeuenced correctly. And the last thing to note, is after hitting his cross, and getting deflected, the bullet now would start going up, instead of forward, and would go up into his neck from the bottom up, and disappear into his head. That would also explain at the same time why there is no exit wound. Because his skull would stop the bullet from exiting. One side note, not related to all of these anomalies, but still a necessary thing to keep in mind - that alleged high velocity bullet Mauser 30_06, could not have possibly be the weapon used, as that bullet would have taken one third of his neck out. For everything to be explained correctly, no Mauser, or any other kind of shotgun could have been used. Another, much smaller caliber weapon had to be used, like some kind of a hand gun, and from a much closer distance too, as a hand gun without the scope, from a far way roof would just not work. And so, that is how all of this happened. I know this was long. But this is one bizarre, super difficult to crack episode. So, I could not make it any shorter.

Your observations are almost correct, but your conclusions are not. What you see flying out, as what others thought was his ear piece, is not his ear piece. It is his chain he had around his neck, with, what I am pretty certain, a cross on it, which all Christians would wear, if they have a chain on their necks. So, what apparently happened, which seems so astronomically unlikely, is the bullet did not hit him in the neck first, but hit him in the chest, and to be more specific in that cross. So, after a hit into that cross, his chain snaps, and it is that which you see flying out backwards. When the chain snaps, and starts flying up and backwards, it also pulls up the front edge of is shirt, in less than 0.1 sec. So, that is how that anomaly is explained at the same time. What happens next, is his mic had a wire under his shirt. It kind of just laid in the back of his neck, going around his shoulder, and disappearing under his shirt on the front. That wire must have had some contact with this chain, or even being wrapped around it like may be just one turn. So, when that chain snaps and starts flying backwards, it starts pulling on his mic at the same time. Just the mic had a wire that was most certainly lose a little bit. So, that is why that responds with a few tens of a second delay. But still, the mic also, after jerking around for a few tens of a second disappears completely of his shirt. So, basically, the bullet hits his cross first, which is on his chain, would explain all of these anomalies at the same time, including the wire on the back of his neck being pulled around from the front, and thus bulging his shirt in the back a little bit. If you pay all of this is slow motion, you will see that it all gets seqeuenced correctly. And the last thing to note, is after hitting his cross, and getting deflected, the bullet now would start going up, instead of forward, and would go up into his neck from the bottom up, and disappear into his head. That would also explain at the same time why there is no exit wound. Because his skull would stop the bullet from exiting. One side note, not related to all of these anomalies, but still a necessary thing to keep in mind - that alleged high velocity bullet Mauser 30_06, could not have possibly be the weapon used, as that bullet would have taken one third of his neck out. For everything to be explained correctly, no Mauser, or any other kind of shotgun could have been used. Another, much smaller caliber weapon had to be used, like some kind of a hand gun, and from a much closer distance too, as a hand gun without the scope, from a far way roof would just not work. And so, that is how all of this happened. I know this was long. But this is one bizarre, super difficult to crack episode. So, I could not make it any shorter.

US_did_ 911

31,087 次观看 • 10 个月前

Ed Dowd: "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system...[and] let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering... [and now] Bitcoin has been tied to... Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it... If you wanted to set up your own dark-money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it, I guess." This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd), a former BlackRock fund manager and co-founder of Phinance Technologies, is taken from an interview with Jesse Day (Jesse Day) posted to the Commodity Culture YouTube channel on February 28, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system. So we have the public-facing institutions, but we find out there's a layer of people above them that know how to manipulate that whole thing to their benefit through Kompromat and blackmail, and money laundering. "Let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering. That's how a lot of this stuff was. It's all dark money. And the other thing that surprised me, that I didn't. This angle I didn't think of. And again, we'll find out more, but Bitcoin has been tied to Jeffrey Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it. I don't know what to think of that and intuitively makes sense. "If you wanted to set up your own dark money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it. I guess. So, you know, there's a lot that's being revealed, and I don't, you know, I don't know what that means for Bitcoin long term, but, it certainly kind of disrupts the narrative that bitcoin is freedom. "I mean, that was kind of one of the narratives that we were hearing. And I've never been a bitcoin, bear or bull. I've always said it's a. It's a proxy for NASDAQ and liquidity trade, you know. You know, buyer beware. It's not a store of wealth. It's very volatile. So that's what it's always been to me is a volatile, you know, 95% correlated asset to the NASDAQ."

Ed Dowd: "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system...[and] let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering... [and now] Bitcoin has been tied to... Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it... If you wanted to set up your own dark-money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it, I guess." This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd), a former BlackRock fund manager and co-founder of Phinance Technologies, is taken from an interview with Jesse Day (Jesse Day) posted to the Commodity Culture YouTube channel on February 28, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "What we're learning from the Epstein files is that it's an operating system. So we have the public-facing institutions, but we find out there's a layer of people above them that know how to manipulate that whole thing to their benefit through Kompromat and blackmail, and money laundering. "Let's not forget Epstein was involved in money laundering. That's how a lot of this stuff was. It's all dark money. And the other thing that surprised me, that I didn't. This angle I didn't think of. And again, we'll find out more, but Bitcoin has been tied to Jeffrey Epstein, and he's been involved in taking over the network and funding it. I don't know what to think of that and intuitively makes sense. "If you wanted to set up your own dark money blackmail operation and launder money, Bitcoin would be the perfect way to do it. I guess. So, you know, there's a lot that's being revealed, and I don't, you know, I don't know what that means for Bitcoin long term, but, it certainly kind of disrupts the narrative that bitcoin is freedom. "I mean, that was kind of one of the narratives that we were hearing. And I've never been a bitcoin, bear or bull. I've always said it's a. It's a proxy for NASDAQ and liquidity trade, you know. You know, buyer beware. It's not a store of wealth. It's very volatile. So that's what it's always been to me is a volatile, you know, 95% correlated asset to the NASDAQ."

Sense Receptor

21,167 次观看 • 4 个月前

‼️IMPORTANT: Donald Trump confirmed that he is willing to visit Ukraine and address the Ukrainian Parliament if it would help the cause. My sources confirm that this is not a random statement and that it was part of a negotiation behind closed doors. The American president himself expressed his willingness to visit Kyiv. If it happens it would be a very big step for Trump, who, unlike many other leaders, has never been to Ukraine and hasn’t even seen those golden domes that Putin is willing to sacrifice his entire country for. Q: Do you anticipate going to Ukraine if you can get to an agreement? TRUMP: I'd have no problem with doing it. You know, I have no problem with doing it. It would... I don't anticipate it. I would like to get the deal done and not necessarily have to go. I've offered to go and speak to their parliament and you know, if that would help. I don't know if that would help. I think it would probably help, but I don't even know if that's… ZELENSKYY: You are welcome… always TRUMP: Yeahh… No, I know it. So, I'm not sure that it would be really necessary. But if it would help save 25,000 lives a month or whatever it may be, I would certainly be willing to do that.

‼️IMPORTANT: Donald Trump confirmed that he is willing to visit Ukraine and address the Ukrainian Parliament if it would help the cause. My sources confirm that this is not a random statement and that it was part of a negotiation behind closed doors. The American president himself expressed his willingness to visit Kyiv. If it happens it would be a very big step for Trump, who, unlike many other leaders, has never been to Ukraine and hasn’t even seen those golden domes that Putin is willing to sacrifice his entire country for. Q: Do you anticipate going to Ukraine if you can get to an agreement? TRUMP: I'd have no problem with doing it. You know, I have no problem with doing it. It would... I don't anticipate it. I would like to get the deal done and not necessarily have to go. I've offered to go and speak to their parliament and you know, if that would help. I don't know if that would help. I think it would probably help, but I don't even know if that's… ZELENSKYY: You are welcome… always TRUMP: Yeahh… No, I know it. So, I'm not sure that it would be really necessary. But if it would help save 25,000 lives a month or whatever it may be, I would certainly be willing to do that.

Kateryna Lisunova

36,750 次观看 • 6 个月前

Americans are coming to the ultimate realization. After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we can no longer coexist with the Left “The more and more I see today, the more pissed off I get, and the more I see that there's no peaceful way to fix this. I've tried to think of any way that I could, and there's not. You guys created something that you don't understand. When you sit out here and celebrate the death of someone, the assassination of someone, that shows me that you are so far gone that we can't be peaceful with you anymore. And that breaks my heart. Because the thing you idiots never understood is the most dangerous thing is a man that just wanted to be left the f*ck alone. And you wouldn't leave us the f*ck alone. So we're at a point now that it's either time for all of you to sit down and shut up. Or you're going to experience something that you will never be able to fathom. The sh*t that's coming your way, it's not going to be what you think it is. This is not something that you can win. This will be one-sided and you don't have a prayer.”

Sensitive content

Americans are coming to the ultimate realization. After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we can no longer coexist with the Left “The more and more I see today, the more pissed off I get, and the more I see that there's no peaceful way to fix this. I've tried to think of any way that I could, and there's not. You guys created something that you don't understand. When you sit out here and celebrate the death of someone, the assassination of someone, that shows me that you are so far gone that we can't be peaceful with you anymore. And that breaks my heart. Because the thing you idiots never understood is the most dangerous thing is a man that just wanted to be left the fck alone. And you wouldn't leave us the fck alone. So we're at a point now that it's either time for all of you to sit down and shut up. Or you're going to experience something that you will never be able to fathom. The sh*t that's coming your way, it's not going to be what you think it is. This is not something that you can win. This will be one-sided and you don't have a prayer.”

Wall Street Apes

92,288 次观看 • 10 个月前

Netanyahu's spokeswoman Caroline Glick struggles to give a straight answer when asked repeatedly by ABC News' Kyra Phillips if Trump "forced Israel's hand" into going to war with Iran. Phillips: "Did [Trump] convince the Israeli Prime Minister to go to war, or was it the other way around?" Glick: "No, I think it– you know, I think his concerns were– were very important, uh, for the decision of when to go..." "'Force' is– is– is maybe not the– the word that I would have chosen, although it's a– it's a fine word, just in the sense that we've been, we– we've been working together and you know, he– he– he leads decisions and, uh, and, uh, we go along with it, and if there's, you know– and we have a conversation, it's a conversation that we have, and, you know, and– and so the concerns are voiced by all sides."

Netanyahu's spokeswoman Caroline Glick struggles to give a straight answer when asked repeatedly by ABC News' Kyra Phillips if Trump "forced Israel's hand" into going to war with Iran. Phillips: "Did [Trump] convince the Israeli Prime Minister to go to war, or was it the other way around?" Glick: "No, I think it– you know, I think his concerns were– were very important, uh, for the decision of when to go..." "'Force' is– is– is maybe not the– the word that I would have chosen, although it's a– it's a fine word, just in the sense that we've been, we– we've been working together and you know, he– he– he leads decisions and, uh, and, uh, we go along with it, and if there's, you know– and we have a conversation, it's a conversation that we have, and, you know, and– and so the concerns are voiced by all sides."

Chris Menahan 🇺🇸

31,504 次观看 • 4 个月前

"It's a superhero movie that is for adults and has adult ideas in it. You don't have to think about it any harder than that. It goes way deeper. If you want to, you can tear it apart like a giant onion and keep peeling it until you're at its core. "But I think that it's cool to experience it just like when I read the comic book for the first time and I didn't know. No one was telling me what it's about or the why of it. You come to it fresh. And sometimes I wish I had that experience because I would love to see the movie or read the book for the first time again because that feeling was for me awesome. "Especially when you go into something with this anticipation that it's just a Hollywood superhero movie which is what a lot of people will think because they don't know. They see some guys fighting and then when you see the film you actually have this experience of it being taken apart. "Those archetypes, those mythological shapes, whether they be Batman or Superman or any of superheroes and how they're just turned around. Whether it's through sexual fetish or fighting, actually killing guys they fight. "Stuff like that or whether it's the end of the movie and there's this moral dilemma that is the end of the movie is also challenging on all those levels."

"It's a superhero movie that is for adults and has adult ideas in it. You don't have to think about it any harder than that. It goes way deeper. If you want to, you can tear it apart like a giant onion and keep peeling it until you're at its core. "But I think that it's cool to experience it just like when I read the comic book for the first time and I didn't know. No one was telling me what it's about or the why of it. You come to it fresh. And sometimes I wish I had that experience because I would love to see the movie or read the book for the first time again because that feeling was for me awesome. "Especially when you go into something with this anticipation that it's just a Hollywood superhero movie which is what a lot of people will think because they don't know. They see some guys fighting and then when you see the film you actually have this experience of it being taken apart. "Those archetypes, those mythological shapes, whether they be Batman or Superman or any of superheroes and how they're just turned around. Whether it's through sexual fetish or fighting, actually killing guys they fight. "Stuff like that or whether it's the end of the movie and there's this moral dilemma that is the end of the movie is also challenging on all those levels."

Zack Snyder Film

22,225 次观看 • 6 个月前

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,550 次观看 • 3 个月前

Seyed Mohammad Marandi replies to question about Russia and China's involvement in Iran. Glenn Diesen: "The American media as well as the European is full of accusations that Russia could be assisting Iran with intelligence with possible targeting. What do we know actually about China and Russia being involved?" Mohammad Marandi: "I don't know the details, but what I do know is that the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians have moved closer to each other. This has been ongoing for years, but after the 12-day war, they've moved even closer. Iran has 15 neighbors. It's a large country. All the transit routes really have to go through Iran in Asia that would connect West Asia and East Asia, and the the Persian Gulf to to Europe and the Caucuses and Central Asia. So, the ability for Iran to receive weapons or anything that would help with the war is there. It could be done through its eastern borders. It can be done through its northern borders and there would be nothing that the United States could do about it. And the Chinese and the Russians can easily use these routes to trade with Iran, for Iran to send what what Iran purchases. I think it's clear as day that the the Russians do not want the United States to succeed in West Asia, and the Chinese obviously don't want it either. ...Zionist expansionism would basically mean further empowerment for the Trump regime and the United States, and they would have control over all the oil that are no longer leaving the Persian Gulf as we speak, but they would have control over everything and that would put China in a very very dangerous situation. More than dangerous. So, I think it's only natural to assume that the Chinese and the Russians are going to cooperate with Iran more. What the United States has done is that it has cemented the relationship between Russia, Iran and China for the years to come. They cemented it."

Seyed Mohammad Marandi replies to question about Russia and China's involvement in Iran. Glenn Diesen: "The American media as well as the European is full of accusations that Russia could be assisting Iran with intelligence with possible targeting. What do we know actually about China and Russia being involved?" Mohammad Marandi: "I don't know the details, but what I do know is that the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians have moved closer to each other. This has been ongoing for years, but after the 12-day war, they've moved even closer. Iran has 15 neighbors. It's a large country. All the transit routes really have to go through Iran in Asia that would connect West Asia and East Asia, and the the Persian Gulf to to Europe and the Caucuses and Central Asia. So, the ability for Iran to receive weapons or anything that would help with the war is there. It could be done through its eastern borders. It can be done through its northern borders and there would be nothing that the United States could do about it. And the Chinese and the Russians can easily use these routes to trade with Iran, for Iran to send what what Iran purchases. I think it's clear as day that the the Russians do not want the United States to succeed in West Asia, and the Chinese obviously don't want it either. ...Zionist expansionism would basically mean further empowerment for the Trump regime and the United States, and they would have control over all the oil that are no longer leaving the Persian Gulf as we speak, but they would have control over everything and that would put China in a very very dangerous situation. More than dangerous. So, I think it's only natural to assume that the Chinese and the Russians are going to cooperate with Iran more. What the United States has done is that it has cemented the relationship between Russia, Iran and China for the years to come. They cemented it."

Eva Karene Bartlett

23,102 次观看 • 4 个月前

BREAKING DOWN the FACTS and ODD occurrences about the Charlie Kirk assassination. - Why does NOBODY seem to help or attend to Charlie's wound and WHY does NOBODY have any BLOOD on their hands? Why aren't they packing the wound? - There is NO WAY it was a .30-06 or a SOFT-TIP .30-06 round. NONE of that would even matter with the amount of power and FPS behind a .30-06 round. A soft-tip round would actually create an even bigger EXIT WOUND than a standard FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) round. BUT... We DIDN'T even get an EXIT WOUND at all, unless the hole we see is the exit wound. Even at a 9 degree angle, shooting from the roof position, a .30-06 would of 100% went RIGHT THROUGH Charlie's neck. Maybe even worse. There is NO WAY the bullet would deflect and go STRAIGHT DOWN after hitting his spine or neck bones. It would of CONTINUED DIRECTLY THROUGH. - Where is the RIFLE in the pictures of him on the steps? There is no visible RIFLE in his pant legs, and it WOULD not fit in that backpack especial with the barrel being 2 ft long itself even broken down, and especially the stock/butt of the gun and the scope fit into a pair of skinny jeans. HOW did Tyler get the RIFLE ON THE ROOF? - Why don't we have more footage, ESPECIALLY of when he took the shot or just with the RIFLE in his hands at ANY POINT? Why does the video start with him running? Nothing makes sense and now with all the new footage of Tyler at the gas station and all these other places and an alleged WOMAN that was seen with the shooter, it makes even less sense, with even more questions. cc: Alex Jones, Owen Benjamin

BREAKING DOWN the FACTS and ODD occurrences about the Charlie Kirk assassination. - Why does NOBODY seem to help or attend to Charlie's wound and WHY does NOBODY have any BLOOD on their hands? Why aren't they packing the wound? - There is NO WAY it was a .30-06 or a SOFT-TIP .30-06 round. NONE of that would even matter with the amount of power and FPS behind a .30-06 round. A soft-tip round would actually create an even bigger EXIT WOUND than a standard FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) round. BUT... We DIDN'T even get an EXIT WOUND at all, unless the hole we see is the exit wound. Even at a 9 degree angle, shooting from the roof position, a .30-06 would of 100% went RIGHT THROUGH Charlie's neck. Maybe even worse. There is NO WAY the bullet would deflect and go STRAIGHT DOWN after hitting his spine or neck bones. It would of CONTINUED DIRECTLY THROUGH. - Where is the RIFLE in the pictures of him on the steps? There is no visible RIFLE in his pant legs, and it WOULD not fit in that backpack especial with the barrel being 2 ft long itself even broken down, and especially the stock/butt of the gun and the scope fit into a pair of skinny jeans. HOW did Tyler get the RIFLE ON THE ROOF? - Why don't we have more footage, ESPECIALLY of when he took the shot or just with the RIFLE in his hands at ANY POINT? Why does the video start with him running? Nothing makes sense and now with all the new footage of Tyler at the gas station and all these other places and an alleged WOMAN that was seen with the shooter, it makes even less sense, with even more questions. cc: Alex Jones, Owen Benjamin

The SCIF

17,884 次观看 • 9 个月前

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 次观看 • 7 个月前

Whoopi Goldberg dismisses Pratt losing his house in the wildfires and says he needs to know what he's talking about and offer "solutions" before "passing judgment" on Karen Bass. She claims he doesn't "understand what people are going through": GOLDBERG: No, he's not the answer but here's the thing, nobody -- You know, they have bitched about these wildfires as long as I've lived in California, it's always been -- it's always been a problem. But what I don't like is if you don't have any solutions that have not been already tried or if you're throwing shade on people saying she diverted water from this place -I mean, you have to -- you have to have some idea of what needs to be done. A lot of people were affected by those wildfires, a lot of my friends, a lot of people you know lost everything. HOSTIN: Right. GOLDBERG: So this is not, you know, a ha, ha, let's do an A.I. video. This is real stuff. People -- this is people's lives. And so, before you're passing judgment, you need to be able to tell people what you have to offer, Spencer. [Applause] You know, and, you know, I don't know what qualifies as the right way to be a politician, but what I do know is they have to be the people who understand what people are going through. And if you don't understand what people are going through, in the way they're going through it, when you're talking about communities, whole communities that have been burned out, whole groups, legacies that are gone. It's more than just this. It's all these things. You got to be prepared for a lot more stuff than I think you -- it is a really hard job and in California particularly.

Whoopi Goldberg dismisses Pratt losing his house in the wildfires and says he needs to know what he's talking about and offer "solutions" before "passing judgment" on Karen Bass. She claims he doesn't "understand what people are going through": GOLDBERG: No, he's not the answer but here's the thing, nobody -- You know, they have bitched about these wildfires as long as I've lived in California, it's always been -- it's always been a problem. But what I don't like is if you don't have any solutions that have not been already tried or if you're throwing shade on people saying she diverted water from this place -I mean, you have to -- you have to have some idea of what needs to be done. A lot of people were affected by those wildfires, a lot of my friends, a lot of people you know lost everything. HOSTIN: Right. GOLDBERG: So this is not, you know, a ha, ha, let's do an A.I. video. This is real stuff. People -- this is people's lives. And so, before you're passing judgment, you need to be able to tell people what you have to offer, Spencer. [Applause] You know, and, you know, I don't know what qualifies as the right way to be a politician, but what I do know is they have to be the people who understand what people are going through. And if you don't understand what people are going through, in the way they're going through it, when you're talking about communities, whole communities that have been burned out, whole groups, legacies that are gone. It's more than just this. It's all these things. You got to be prepared for a lot more stuff than I think you -- it is a really hard job and in California particularly.

Nicholas Fondacaro

21,041 次观看 • 2 个月前

"If I saw that 3I/Atlas was...zigzagging, or approaching Earth, or releasing some mini probes...then obviously, you know, the stock market may crash." ~Avi (Pretty solid answer here from today's podcast/debate with the added bonus of some light shots at Shermer.) Dr. Avi Loeb: "The truth is not decided by authority. I don't care about what Alan Stern says. I don't care about what P(David|Kipping) ∝ P(Kipping|David) P(David) says. If the data shows something really anomalous, they can continue to say that it's a dark comet. "On January 2, 2025, there was an object catalogued by the minor planets...the main authority designated by the international astronomy union. They found a near-Earth asteroid and gave it a name. And then [later] they realized that, 'Oh, that one follows the path of the Tesla Roadster car that was launched by SpaceX in 2018.' Removed it immediately from their catalog. "And there were dozens of cases like that, where astronomers say, 'It's a rock! Oh, wait a minute. No, it's a spacecraft or some space debris that we launched.' Now, what about spacecraft or space debris that other civilizations launched? We don't know their trajectories. And those same astronomers that Michael Shermer calls experts would say and insist that they must be rocks of a type that we've never seen before. That was done for Oumuamua. "There were experts that Michael would really respect that said, 'You know, it's a hydrogen iceberg. It's a nitrogen iceberg. It's a dust bunny.' These were the mainstream suggestions. Can you believe it? Things we've never seen before. A dust bunny being Oumuamua? A hydrogen iceberg. These are the experts that Michael wants us to listen to (I love these little jabs at Shermer. ~Joe)! And I'm saying, science depends on the level of evidence. So obviously, eventually, if we have enough evidence... "So, what I would like, you know, if I saw that 3I/Atlas was maneuvering, just to give an example, if it was maneuvering, then obviously, you know, the stock market may crash. Because that kind of a maneuver that cannot be accounted for by the rocket effect of a comet - if it's like, zigzagging or approaching Earth or releasing some mini probes - you know, that would be clear indication that it's technological. Or if it broadcasts something or has artificial lights. "However, if it becomes, you know, clear that it has a cometary tail of the type that is expected from natural objects, I would... You know, I invented the scale last month. Now it's called the Loeb scale, where zero means natural, ten means artificial and likely to threaten Earth. And so far, I gave it a four, 3I/Atlas. But, I would bring it down to zero if we get more data as it comes close to the sun and it erupts just like a comet, I would say, 'Yeah, it's natural. I bring it down to zero.' "Now you may ask, 'How is it that you are changing your mind? Is it under pressure?' No, it's because we have more data and science. You know, whoever pretends that scientists know the answer is wrong, because, you know, we thought that we detected B-mode polarization from inflation. It ended up being dust from, you know, the Milky Way Galaxy. And that's just an example of how science is done in iterations. It takes more and more data, eventually, to figure out what's going on."

"If I saw that 3I/Atlas was...zigzagging, or approaching Earth, or releasing some mini probes...then obviously, you know, the stock market may crash." ~Avi (Pretty solid answer here from today's podcast/debate with the added bonus of some light shots at Shermer.) Dr. Avi Loeb: "The truth is not decided by authority. I don't care about what Alan Stern says. I don't care about what P(David|Kipping) ∝ P(Kipping|David) P(David) says. If the data shows something really anomalous, they can continue to say that it's a dark comet. "On January 2, 2025, there was an object catalogued by the minor planets...the main authority designated by the international astronomy union. They found a near-Earth asteroid and gave it a name. And then [later] they realized that, 'Oh, that one follows the path of the Tesla Roadster car that was launched by SpaceX in 2018.' Removed it immediately from their catalog. "And there were dozens of cases like that, where astronomers say, 'It's a rock! Oh, wait a minute. No, it's a spacecraft or some space debris that we launched.' Now, what about spacecraft or space debris that other civilizations launched? We don't know their trajectories. And those same astronomers that Michael Shermer calls experts would say and insist that they must be rocks of a type that we've never seen before. That was done for Oumuamua. "There were experts that Michael would really respect that said, 'You know, it's a hydrogen iceberg. It's a nitrogen iceberg. It's a dust bunny.' These were the mainstream suggestions. Can you believe it? Things we've never seen before. A dust bunny being Oumuamua? A hydrogen iceberg. These are the experts that Michael wants us to listen to (I love these little jabs at Shermer. ~Joe)! And I'm saying, science depends on the level of evidence. So obviously, eventually, if we have enough evidence... "So, what I would like, you know, if I saw that 3I/Atlas was maneuvering, just to give an example, if it was maneuvering, then obviously, you know, the stock market may crash. Because that kind of a maneuver that cannot be accounted for by the rocket effect of a comet - if it's like, zigzagging or approaching Earth or releasing some mini probes - you know, that would be clear indication that it's technological. Or if it broadcasts something or has artificial lights. "However, if it becomes, you know, clear that it has a cometary tail of the type that is expected from natural objects, I would... You know, I invented the scale last month. Now it's called the Loeb scale, where zero means natural, ten means artificial and likely to threaten Earth. And so far, I gave it a four, 3I/Atlas. But, I would bring it down to zero if we get more data as it comes close to the sun and it erupts just like a comet, I would say, 'Yeah, it's natural. I bring it down to zero.' "Now you may ask, 'How is it that you are changing your mind? Is it under pressure?' No, it's because we have more data and science. You know, whoever pretends that scientists know the answer is wrong, because, you know, we thought that we detected B-mode polarization from inflation. It ended up being dust from, you know, the Milky Way Galaxy. And that's just an example of how science is done in iterations. It takes more and more data, eventually, to figure out what's going on."

Joe Murgia

26,271 次观看 • 10 个月前

🚨 BREAKING: El Salvador President Nayib Bukele credits the hand of God for TURNING AROUND his country in favor of prosperity and safety 🇺🇸🇸🇻 "It was the hand of God. And no one can doubt it!" "It is a constant proof that God works when asked with faith. Transforming that, the most dangerous country in the world, into what it is today, is the clearest miracle." "If God took what was already more or less good and perfected it, yes, it was a miracle..." "...but if God took the worst and turned it into security, into the best, then it is an example of a miracle. Without a doubt, and with proof. What are the proofs? Not only the great fact, but what we supposedly did." "We have to confess that we do not know how it happened. And there is no one who can come and explain how it happened. Otherwise, let it not be a miracle." BUKELE IS INCREDIBLE! A model for the West!

🚨 BREAKING: El Salvador President Nayib Bukele credits the hand of God for TURNING AROUND his country in favor of prosperity and safety 🇺🇸🇸🇻 "It was the hand of God. And no one can doubt it!" "It is a constant proof that God works when asked with faith. Transforming that, the most dangerous country in the world, into what it is today, is the clearest miracle." "If God took what was already more or less good and perfected it, yes, it was a miracle..." "...but if God took the worst and turned it into security, into the best, then it is an example of a miracle. Without a doubt, and with proof. What are the proofs? Not only the great fact, but what we supposedly did." "We have to confess that we do not know how it happened. And there is no one who can come and explain how it happened. Otherwise, let it not be a miracle." BUKELE IS INCREDIBLE! A model for the West!

Eric Daugherty

136,747 次观看 • 6 个月前

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 次观看 • 1 年前