Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Fine ass dreadhead 🥷🏽pulled up for some throat the other day.. his dick was thick veiny & curvy af 👅😮💨 #dmvfreaks #lafreaks #nycfreaks #bbc #nsfwtwtً #throatvids #memphisfreaks #njfreaks #atlfreaks #ncfreaks #ohiofreaks #htxfreaks #throatgoat #chicagofreaks
191,177 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
Benzer Videolar
1:31
Sensitive content
It's not uncommon for teens to develop an interest in politics/philosophy/religion/cultural issues. You know this because your son is on the server, you fucking idiot. You've been on the server at least 4-5 times to debate some of those teens during AMAs about a wide variety of issues. You absolutely knew many of them were minors at the time you debated them in the server while streaming to your audience. You've debated other content creators - who were minors - on your stream countless times over the last decade. They all had their own communities - full of minors. Don't you feel at least a little weird about trying these attacks? You were just outed by one of your closest friends for doing ageplay -- AGAIN. You received CSAM as jerkoff material and when the minor was later located you pulled up her kiwifarms thread with her dox and underage photos ON YOUR STREAM. You've gone on in detail about how you found and scrolled through countless images and videos of minors engaged in sexual acts on twitter - THEN POSTED THE HASHTAG YOU FOUND IT ON IN YOUR CHAT. You giggled like a bitch while talking about the good old days when you and your other adult friends trolled a child into pulling out his dick on camera for you while his brother, who you knew so well you had a nickname for him, was on stream shirtless for you. You hang out with a proud pedophile, who has groaned on and on about wanting to wrap herself around a 12 year old and jerking off to cartoon kids, and call that pedophile your only true defender. Are you starting to understand the difference? When we find minors being groomed by predators in our community, we immediately involve the parents, the platform, and the authorities. Then we publicly name and shame them so everyone knows what they are. When you found a minor being groomed by a predator, you helped kiwifarms dox her because you couldn't. I turn CSAM over to the authorities so they can arrest the perpetrators and protect the minors. You recorded yourself blowing hot loads to it. We are not the same. I don't think it's reasonable to punish teens with an interest in learning about these topics because the internet is full of people like you. Also -- Yes, my father had an extremely outdated sense of masculinity and machismo. I grew up very rough. I was not a sheltered suburban boy like you. When I was a child, my friend's older brother and his friend were murdered in a drive by while I was near the car they were parked in. One was killed instantly. I watched the other bleed out and die. Many of my family members and friends were killed by gang violence when I was young. My father thought the best way to help me absorb this was a crude form of exposure therapy. Why is this relevant? Do you think it has impacted my ability to process emotion? I mean -- Probably. Very likely. I think I do just fine though. Would it be relevant for me to bring up your dementia-addled grandmother strangling puppies you'd grown to love after blaming them when she'd piss on the floor? Would it be relevant to bring up the fact you were raped as a child? Have those and other traumas probably impacted your ability to process emotion? Probably. Clearly, you are not doing just fine. Was this just a lazy attempt at a dig or did you intend to go somewhere with the childhood thing?
Dooby
84,383 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce
![So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, “He Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. “However, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK’s brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. “From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.”83 “We never had the opportunity to review his wounds,” Dr. Carrico told the author, “in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.”84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: “We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.”85 “I don’t think any of us got a good look at the head wound,” confirms Dr. Perry. “I didn’t examine it or really look at it that carefully.”86 “And when we realized he was dead,” Dr. Baxter recalls, “none of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.”87 “When things were over with,” Dr. Jones says, “you felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.”88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.”89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the President’s head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, “The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked … and to have Mrs. Kennedy there—none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital—that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.” “We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,” recalls Dr. Carrico. “We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.”91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. “I guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn’t do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.”92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. “I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.” Dr. Jenkins’s original report also stated he saw cerebellum. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” he says. “When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”93* “I did not really look at it that closely,” says Dr. Perry. “But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.”94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: “He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn’t tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That’s just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a “large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.”96 Dr. Giesecke agrees “that the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 “I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 “Bob is an excellent surgeon,” says Dr. Jenkins. “He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the President’s brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.”102 “McClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,” says Baden. “I am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.”103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104† Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. “I don’t remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,” says Dr. Ron Jones. “I don’t remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “Neither do I,” says Dr. Baxter. “I feel sorry for him,” says Dr. Perry. “I had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.… He is a pitiful sight.” A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, “I think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.” While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committee’s medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFK’s head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the President’s head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the President’s car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctors’ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFK’s back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President’s head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the President’s brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. “He told me,” said Humes, “that the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the President’s body” (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367–68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctors—Pepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClelland—went to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedy’s head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the President’s head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. “False,” says Dr. Michael Baden. “There is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skull” (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. “I don’t know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the President’s chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.” * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” † Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedy’s neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. “That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. “I did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.” * While the Select Committee’s forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President’s head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side “could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.” In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President’s head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wecht’s way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFK’s head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that “the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.” He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, “Yes, that’s true, there should be more fragments.” Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible—except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1907374209979842573/ext_tw_video_thumb/1907371183789539328/pu/img/H5emFOslkouoPfyv.jpg)
!["If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty 🇺🇦 and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, “I think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from space”.’ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, they’re doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that he’s worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get ‘em.' Day said, “in the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! We’re going to intercept these things!” (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1944857237375344663/amplify_video_thumb/1944522778964832256/img/b83qGkeX31f9dB-V.jpg)
![Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1916273688736940311/amplify_video_thumb/1916261346590515200/img/hUvZMgeSmwtcpp9Y.jpg)
